CWP No. 6628 of 2015 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (224) CWP No. 6628 of 2015 Date of Decision: 13.07.2026 Gurjit Kaur and others .....Petitioners Versus Industrial Tribunal, Patiala and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Anamika Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Sharma, Advocate with Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3. **** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the award 13.02.2013 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No. 1, whereby the claim of workman-Jagraj Singh, has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts for disposal of the present case are that Jagraj Singh joined the services of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (PRTC) as a Conductor on 01.01.1978. During the course of his service, he developed a physical disability in his left arm, rendering him incapable of efficiently performing the duties of a Conductor. Consequently, on 09.08.1999, Jagraj Singh applied to the Civil Surgeon, Sangrur, seeking medical examination for assignment of light duty to him. Pursuant thereto, he was examined by the Medical Board, and on 21.9.1999, the Civil Surgeon recommended for assignment of light duty for a period of three months to GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.23 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 6628 of 2015 -2- him. Despite the said recommendation, the respondent-corporation did not accommodate the workman as per his medical condition. Rather, vide letter dated 23.12.1999, respondent No. 3 rejected both his requests for light duty, as well as that for retirement. The respondent-corporation also issued a charge sheet dated 20.10.1999 for having remained absent from duty since 31.8.1999 onwards. An enquiry was conducted, whereby vide enquiry report dated 10.12.2000, the charge were not found to be proved against Jagraj Singh. Thereafter, Jagraj Singh was issued another charge sheet dated 10.12.1999 for having allegedly remained absent from duty for certain days thereby causing loss to the respondent-Corporation, which resulted in his dismissal from service vide order dated 16.05.2001. The appeal filed by Jagraj Singh was dismissed on 23.11.2001 (Annexure P-10). Being Aggrieved therefrom, Jagraj Singh raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala. However, vide impugned award 13.02.2013 (Annexure P-11), the Tribunal upheld the order of dismissal and declined the relief of reinstatement to Jagraj Singh. During the pendency of the matter, Jagraj Singh expired on 06.06.2013, whereafter the present writ petition has been instituted by his legal heirs challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal has committed a patent illegality in passing the impugned order dated 13.2.2013, whereby the claim of the workman has been rejected. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has completely failed to consider the plea of the workman as well as the evidence produced by him, which clearly established that he was physically incapable of discharging the duties of a Conductor and had been specifically certified by the Medical Board as fit only for light duty. However, the respondent-Corporation, in disregard of GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.23 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 6628 of 2015 -3- the recommendation of the Medical Board, refused to assign light duty to the workman. It is further contended that the alleged absence of the workman from duty is also with regard to the period for which light duty had been recommended. Therefore, the action of the respondent-Corporation to terminate the service of the workman, is illegal and arbitrary. It is submitted thereafter that in the earlier enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer, the charges of causing loss to the respondent-corporation were not proved against the workman. Moreover, the workman was not afforded an effective opportunity to defend himself, therefore, the said enquiry is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel also submits that similarly situated Conductors and Drivers had been granted light duty, whereas the case of the petitioner was arbitrarily declined by the authority concerned. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned award dated 13.02.2013, be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 opposes the present petition. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal, after appreciating the entire evidence, rightly upheld the findings of the enquiry officer as well as the order of dismissal of the workman. Therefore, it is prayed the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 6. Before proceeding further with the matter, a gainful reference can be made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.L.Singla versus Punjab National Bank and another, 2018(4) SCT 429, wherein, while upholding the validity of the inquiry, it was held as under:- “49 Having perused the enquiry proceedings along with the Enquiry Report, we are of the view that no fault of any nature can be GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.23 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 6628 of 2015 -4- noticed in the domestic enquiry proceedings for more than one reason. 50. First, the appellant was given full opportunity at every stage of the proceedings which he availed; Second, he never raised any objection complaining causing of any prejudice of any nature to him before the Enquiry Officer; Third, he received all the papers/documents filed and relied upon by respondent No.1-Bank in support of the charge-sheet; Fourth, he filed reply, cross examined the employer's witnesses, examined his witnesses in defense, attended the proceedings and lastly, the Enquiry Officer appreciated the evidence and submitted his reasoned report running in several pages holding the appellant guilty of both the charges. 51. In short, in our opinion, no case is made out to hold that the domestic enquiry suffers from any procedural lapse or was conducted in violation of the principle of natural justice thereby causing any prejudice to the rights of the appellant. 52. Once it is held that the domestic enquiry is legal and proper, the next question arises for consideration is as to whether the punishment imposed on the appellant is just and legal or it is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges.” 7. A perusal of the impugned award dated 13.2.2013 reveals that the after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, the learned Industrial Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the domestic enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and that the workman was afforded adequate opportunity to defend himself. It has also been observed in the impugned order that the workman was found repeatedly absent from duty and before the termination order, he was afforded adequate opportunity of personal hearing, which fact has been admitted by the workman in his cross-examination, where he has admitted that show cause notice was received by him and reply to the same was submitted by him. The workman also filed an appeal against his termination order dated 16.5.2001 whereby he was also heard personally by the A.M.D. before deciding the appeal. Before deciding the said appeal, the GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.23 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 6628 of 2015 -5- service record of the workman was also taken into consideration, which revealed that he was under suspension 07 times, and was terminated from service on 02 occasions. The learned Tribunal has also observed that though in his application Ex. W1, the workman had pleaded that he was physically handicapped, and that he could not issue tickets with one arm, however, in his application Ex. W4, he was completely silent about the said disability, rather he alleged that he was allergic to diesel and suffered vomiting during travelling. The learned Tribunal, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, rightly upheld the order of termination dated 16.5.2001. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the findings recorded by the authorities concerned are based on a proper appreciation of the material on record. 9. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 /227 of the Constitution of India does not sit as an appellate Court to re-appreciate factual findings in the absence of any manifest illegality or perversity. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error, violation of principles of natural justice or patent illegality, warranting any interference by this Court. 10. Consequently, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed. 11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE July 13th, 2026 Gurpreet Singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.23 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh