CWP-24888-2015 and CWP-19787-2015 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 17.07.2026 (1) CWP-24888-2015 (O&M) Ramesh Chander …Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Gurgaon and another Respondents (2) CWP-19787-2015 (O&M) Parveen Kumar …Petitioner Versus M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Bhisham Kumar, Advocate Ms. Mansi Majoka, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-24888-2015. Ms. K. Inder Singh, Advocate for Mr. Aalok Jagga, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-19787-2015. Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.S. Chadha, Advocate for respondent No.2 in both cases. **** KIRTI SINGH , J.(ORAL) 1. Both these writ petitions arise from the same industrial agitation by the workmen of M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (then Maruti Udyog MAHIMA 2026.07.29 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-24888-2015 and CWP-19787-2015 (O&M) -2- Limited), Gurgaon, in 2000-2001, and the same Settlement dated 08.01.2001. Both were remanded together to the learned Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court by a common order of this Court dated 01.12.2014, and both references were answered against the petitioners by separate awards, each dated 19.05.2015. For the sake of brevity, they are being heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. Ramesh Chander, the petitioner in CWP No. 24888 of 2015, joined the respondent-Management as a Technician on 21.03.1991. After the settlement dated 08.01.2001, he was served with a charge-sheet dated 13.12.2000 on 12.01.2001. It alleged that he had raised derogatory slogans on 05.10.2000, that he had refused to obey his supervisor and used abusive language on 09.10.2000, and that he had remained absent from his workstation without permission on 11.10.2000, each incident causing the production line to stop. The Enquiry Officer, Sh. Praveen Gupta, found him guilty vide report dated 14.02.2002. He was dismissed on 27.08.2002, and his appeal was dismissed on 23.12.2002. His reference, No. 314 of 2003, was first decided on the preliminary issue of fair enquiry vide order dated 10.02.2010, which was set aside, along with connected matters, and remanded vide the common order dated 01.12.2014. On remand, the learned Tribunal again answered the reference against him vide the impugned award dated 19.05.2015. 3. Praveen Kumar, the petitioner in CWP No. 19787 of 2015, was appointed as a Workman Trainee on 09.06.1995 and later regularised. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 14.11.2000 on 12.01.2001, four days after the settlement dated 08.01.2001. It alleged that he had shouted anti-management slogans on 05.10.2000, that he had gone missing from his MAHIMA 2026.07.29 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-24888-2015 and CWP-19787-2015 (O&M) -3- workplace without permission on 06.10.2000 causing a line stoppage, and that, later the same day, he had removed the welding tip of a portable spot- welding gun and sprayed water on components kept for welding. The Enquiry Officer, Sh. Sumant Mathur, found him guilty vide report dated 19.01.2002. He was dismissed on 07.08.2002, and his appeal was rejected shortly thereafter. His reference, No. 318 of 2003, was likewise first decided on the preliminary issue of fair enquiry vide order dated 15.02.2010, which was set aside, along with connected matters, and remanded vide the very same common order dated 01.12.2014. On remand, the learned Tribunal again answered the reference against him vide the impugned award dated 19.05.2015. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised the following points. First, that the timing of the charge-sheets shows malice, since each charge related to the agitation period but was served only after the settlement dated 08.01.2001, once normalcy had returned. Second, that the case of one Sarwan Kumar, who was reinstated by the learned Labour Court vide order dated 27.11.2008, is identical to the petitioners' cases, and they should be given the same benefit. Third, that in Ramesh Chander's case, the charge-sheet and the dismissal order were signed by the Department Manager, whose authority to do so under the Certified Standing Orders has not been shown, and that he was, in addition, never given an opportunity to address the proposed punishment before he was dismissed. Fourth, that in Praveen Kumar's case, his termination is discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution, since 41 similarly placed workmen involved in the same agitation were reinstated under the settlement upon giving individual undertakings, and that MAHIMA 2026.07.29 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-24888-2015 and CWP-19787-2015 (O&M) -4- the Enquiry Officer wrongly discarded the evidence of his four defence witnesses on grounds that were frivolous and unconnected to the charges. 5. Learned senior counsel for the respondent Management, per contra, submitted that both petitions are squarely covered by the judgment of this Court dated 11.11.2025 in CWP-18739-2015 (O&M), titled Devender Khatri Vs. M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and another, which arose out of the very same agitation and the very same settlement dated 08.01.2001. It was submitted that the main questions of law raised here, namely the limited scope of interference under Article 226/227 of the Constitution with the findings of a domestic enquiry, and the plea of parity with a differently placed co-workman, already stand decided against the petitioners by that judgment. It was further submitted that neither petitioner disputes that natural justice was followed, or alleges personal malice against the Enquiry Officer concerned; that the charges against both petitioners were proved through the sworn testimony of eye-witnesses, tested in cross-examination; that the plea about the Department Manager's authority was never raised earlier and cannot be raised for the first time before this Court; that no second show-cause notice on the quantum of punishment is required in law once a full opportunity has already been given at the enquiry stage; and that the 41 workmen relied upon by Praveen Kumar formed a separate, specifically named class under the settlement, with whom no parity can be claimed. 6. Heard the respective parties and perused the relevant material on record, including the judgment of this Court dated 11.11.2025 in Devender Khatri's case, the observations made wherein read thus: MAHIMA 2026.07.29 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-24888-2015 and CWP-19787-2015 (O&M) -5- xxx xxx xxx 5. This Court has heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the contesting parties, and perused the record. 6. Before embarking upon the abovesaid arguments, and to evaluate the legality of impugned award, it is imperative to have a glimpse of the relevant facts, as set out in the claim statement, which have led the parties to the current stage. 7. The petitioner-workman had joined the respondent- Management on the post of Fitter, on 11.08.1997, and maintained a good service record. However, as referred to above, the charge sheet dated 22.11.2000, was served upon him on 10.01.2001, to which, he submitted a reply dated 20.01.2001, denying all the allegations levelled against him. Whereafter, the respondent-Management appointed Mr. A.K. Shukla as an Enquiry Officer, vide order dated 31.07.2001, who, after conducting the enquiry, submitted his report on 15.12.2001, thereby holding him guilty of four out of five charges levelled against the petitioner. Proceeding with the matter, the respondent-Management had called upon the petitioner to submit an explanation, whereafter, vide order dated 12.01.2002, his services were, ultimately, terminated. Aggrieved thereby, he preferred a statutory appeal, which too, was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 23.05.2002, being time barred. Having been left with no option, the petitioner filed a claim statement, which was referred to the learned Industrial Tribunal, under Section 10(1) (C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the ID Act'). 8. The respondent-Management contested the reference by filing a written statement to the effect that the claim statement filed on behalf of the petitioner-workman was meritless. In nutshell, it was categorically pleaded that he was afforded due opportunity of hearing by the Enquiry Officer, apart from furnishing the charge-sheet in vernacular. Further, all the witnesses of the Management were examined before the petitioner-workman. Therefore, the requisite procedure was followed before terminating his services. 9. Upon consideration of the matter and the evidence brought on record the learned Industrial Tribunal, vide award dated 07.06.2010 (Annexure P-10) answered the reference against the petitioner-workman. Whereafter, the petitioner, along with the similarly circumstanced employees, had challenged the award (supra), before this Court by way of a bunch of writ petitions. Consequently, vide a common order dated 01.12.2014 (Annexure P- 11), the said petitions were disposed of, thereby, remanding the matter to the learned Tribunal, for deciding the same afresh, after considering all the issues that had been raised before it. MAHIMA 2026.07.29 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-24888-2015 and CWP-19787-2015 (O&M) -6- 10. In pursuance of the order (supra), the petitioner- workman examined himself, along with the other witness, and also adduced documentary evidence. Finally, the learned Industrial Tribunal, vide impugned award, answered the reference against the petitioner-workman. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court in the second round of litigation. 11. It is a matter of record the petitioner has not disputed the adherence of the principles of natural justice by the respondent- Management. So much so, no allegation that the Enquiry Officer had conducted the enquiry with malice has been levelled by him. Therefore, this Court has to be abundantly cautioned in evaluating the validity of the enquiry report. There is no quarrel with the settled proposition of law that this Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority, or act as a Disciplinary Authority, in order to re-appreciate the evidence and opine a different view from the one taken by the Enquiry Officer. 12. At this juncture, this Court is reminded to point out that except raising the issue that the evidence led during the enquiry proceedings were not discussed in detail by the Enquiry Officer, learned counsel for the petitioner is, unable to refer to any illegality that has crept in the enquiry report. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that since the issue, as sought to be raised, would not go to the root of the matter, no interference is required. Further, a bare perusal of the enquiry report reveals that the Enquiry Officer predicated his report upon the statements of MW-1 and MW-2, who were, admittedly, cross-examined by the petitioner- workman himself. In such circumstances, there is no scope for any doubt that the findings returned by the learned Industrial Tribunal as regards that first issue do not require any interference, and the same is upheld. 13. Now, this Court is required to advert to the next issue, as to whether, the punishment is in proportion to the charges framed against the petitioner or not. Before delving into this issue, it would be expedient to refer to the charges framed against the petitioner, and the same are extracted hereinafter :- "CHARGE-SHEET xxx xxx xxx" 14. A perusal of the contents of the charge-sheet clearly indicates that the petitioner not only willfully damaged the property of the Management, but also used unparliamentary language against his senior (Supervisor), which, at any rate, needs to be deprecated. This leads to a definite conclusion that conduct of the petitioner speaks volumes that he intentionally attempted to bring the operations of the MAHIMA 2026.07.29 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-24888-2015 and CWP-19787-2015 (O&M) -7- respondent-Management to a standstill, which would result in huge monetary loss. In this view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the punishment of termination is, indeed, in proportionate to the charges framed and proved against the petitioner. 15. In conspectus of the position sketched out above, this Court is of the affirmed view that the learned Industrial Tribunal has committed no erroг, while answering the reference against the petitioner-workman, and thus, the same is upheld. 16. Resultantly, the instant petition, being bereft of merit, is dismissed." 7. At the outset, the plea that the timing of the charge-sheets shows malice does not hold. Each charge-sheet related to the agitation period but was served only after the settlement dated 08.01.2001, once normalcy had returned. It may be recalled that the charge sheet in Devender Khatri's case, decided by this Court vide judgment dated 11.11.2025 in CWP-18739-2015, was dated 22.11.2000 and was, in like manner, served upon him only on 10.01.2001, after the very same settlement, and this did not persuade this Court to interfere in that case either. Clause 5(a) of the settlement expressly reserved the Management's right to proceed against workmen guilty of gross misconduct during the agitation, and did not grant immunity merely because a charge-sheet had not yet been served as on the date of settlement. That the Management completed the disciplinary process only after normalcy had returned does not, by itself, show malice. 8. The plea of parity based on Sarwan Kumar's case fails for much the same reason. An identical plea, based on the very same order dated 27.11.2008, was raised and rejected in Devender Khatri's case, where this Court held that every case turns on its own facts and evidence and must be MAHIMA 2026.07.29 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-24888-2015 and CWP-19787-2015 (O&M) -8- decided independently. The same reasoning applies here: that a co-workman fared better on his own facts does not, by itself, entitle another workman to relief. 9. The challenge to the Department Manager's authority to issue the charge-sheet and the order of dismissal, raised on behalf of Ramesh Chander, also fails. This point was never raised before the Enquiry Officer or the learned Labour Court, nor was it ever framed as an issue by the learned Tribunal. Such a question, which would require proof of internal delegation of authority, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in writ jurisdiction, more so when no facts have been pleaded to show that the officer concerned in fact lacked authority. 10. Nor can Ramesh Chander's grievance that he was denied a separate opportunity to address the quantum of punishment, after the enquiry report was upheld, be accepted. Unless a specific contract or rule requires a second show-cause notice confined to punishment, no such separate opportunity is required where the workman has already had a full opportunity to contest the charges before the Enquiry Officer and to make a representation against the enquiry report, as was undisputedly done here. No specific prejudice on this count has been shown. 11. The plea of discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution, raised on behalf of Praveen Kumar with reference to the 41 workmen reinstated under Clause 5(b)(i) of the settlement, is equally misconceived. Those 41 workmen, 20 from the essential-services category and 21 workmen trainees, were a specific and complete list named in Annexure-IV to the MAHIMA 2026.07.29 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-24888-2015 and CWP-19787-2015 (O&M) -9- settlement, who had given individual Good Conduct Undertakings and were reinstated as a special case, without prejudice to future action for fresh misconduct. The petitioner does not figure, and does not claim to figure, in that list. A workman who does not belong to a class specially created by a settlement cannot invoke Article 14 to claim equal treatment with that class. 12. The detailed challenge raised on behalf of Praveen Kumar to the manner in which his four defence witnesses were discarded by the Enquiry Officer, however elaborately argued, is in substance a challenge to how the evidence in the domestic enquiry was weighed. The Enquiry Officer has given reasons, brief as they are, for not relying on that evidence, and the learned Labour Court, after a full trial on remand, examined this very point and found no fault with the enquiry. This Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, does not re-weigh the credibility of witnesses or substitute its own view of the evidence for that of the Enquiry Officer and the learned Tribunal, so long as the enquiry is not shown to be a mere formality or a finding without any evidence at all, which is plainly not the case here: each Enquiry Officer relied on the sworn testimony of eye-witnesses, tested by cross-examination. 13. As for the proportionality of punishment, the charges proved against Ramesh Chander include raising anti-management slogans on the shop floor, refusing his supervisor's lawful instructions while using abusive language, and unauthorised absence from his workstation causing repeated stoppage of the production line. The charges proved against Praveen Kumar go further and include removing the welding tip of a portable spot-welding MAHIMA 2026.07.29 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-24888-2015 and CWP-19787-2015 (O&M) -10- gun and spraying water on components awaiting welding, conduct capable of damaging machinery and components on the shop floor. Such conduct strikes at basic shop-floor discipline in a manufacturing establishment and cannot be called so minor as to make dismissal an excessive punishment, particularly since neither petitioner has disputed that natural justice was followed or alleged personal malice against the Enquiry Officer concerned. 14. For these reasons, and drawing support from the judgment of this Court dated 11.11.2025 in Devender Khatri's case on the questions of law common to both matters, this Court finds no fault with the impugned awards dated 19.05.2015 answering the respective references against the petitioners. Resultantly, both CWP No. 24888 of 2015 and CWP No. 19787 of 2015, being bereft of merit, are dismissed. 15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly. (KIRTI SINGH) July 17, 2026 JUDGE Ithlesh/mahima Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MAHIMA 2026.07.29 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh