CWP No. 2624 of 2016 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (126+216) AJMER SINGH THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AMBALA AND ORS. CORAM HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral) CM-14212 of 2026 1) representatives of deceased petitioner 2) The legal representatives of deceased petitioner in para 3 of th 3) No. 2624 of 2016 (O&M) --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No. 2624 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision 13.08.2026 AJMER SINGH Versus THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AMBALA AND ORS. CORAM HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s). (Through VC) Mr. Kapil Bansal, DAG, Haryana Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 4. KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral) 14212 of 2026 This application is for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased petitioner-Ajmer Singh. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The legal representatives of deceased petitioner in para 3 of the application, are ordered to be impleaded as petitioners. Amended memo of parties is taken on record. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 2624 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision 13.08.2026 ....workman THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AMBALA AND ORS. ....Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Kapil Bansal, DAG, Haryana Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 4. application is for bringing on record the legal Ajmer Singh. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The legal representatives of deceased petitioner-Ajmer Singh, as mentioned e application, are ordered to be impleaded as petitioners. Amended memo of parties is taken on record. application is for bringing on record the legal For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Ajmer Singh, as mentioned SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.08.21 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 2624 of 2016 (O&M) MAIN CASE 1. certiorari quashing the award dated 14.06.2011 (Annexure P ld. Labour Court, Ambala, in Reference No.274 of 2008, and consequently for the reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service, full back wages and other claims. 2. a Clerk in the service of the Kheri Markanda Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd., Kheri Markanda, District Kurukshetra, on 08.09.1978, and was thereafter promoted to the post of Secretary Grade 09.07.2004, pursuant to which he was posted at the Bahadurpura Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd., Bahadurpura, District Kurukshetra. While so posted, the workman was placed under suspension, and a charge 15.12. was issued to him alleging, int to which the workman submitted his reply. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and the enquiry culminated in a report dated 26.10.2006 holding the workman guilty of the charges. A show was thereafter issued to the workman under Rule 27.1 of the Haryana State Central Cooperative Banks Employees Service Rules, 1975, proposing why his services should not be terminated and directing him to deposit the alleged embezzled amount; the notice was rece The workman was thereafter granted a further opportunity to reply to the show-cause notice vide reminder dated 05.01.2007, to which he submitted his reply on 15.01.2007. The matter was placed before the Board of Director of the respondent the workman were dismissed vide order dated 01.06.2007. The workman No. 2624 of 2016 (O&M) --2-- MAIN CASE The present petition was filed seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the award dated 14.06.2011 (Annexure P ld. Labour Court, Ambala, in Reference No.274 of 2008, and consequently for the reinstatement of the petitioner-workman (since deceased) in service with continuity of service, full back wages and other claims. As per the pleaded facts, the workman a Clerk in the service of the Kheri Markanda Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd., Kheri Markanda, District Kurukshetra, on 08.09.1978, and was thereafter promoted to the post of Secretary Grade 04, pursuant to which he was posted at the Bahadurpura Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd., Bahadurpura, District Kurukshetra. While so posted, the workman was placed under suspension, and a charge 15.12. was issued to him alleging, inter alia, embezzlement of Rs 6,14,469/ to which the workman submitted his reply. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and the enquiry culminated in a report dated 26.10.2006 holding the workman guilty of the charges. A show hereafter issued to the workman under Rule 27.1 of the Haryana State Central Cooperative Banks Employees Service Rules, 1975, proposing why his services should not be terminated and directing him to deposit the alleged embezzled amount; the notice was received by the workman on 02.12.2006.. The workman was thereafter granted a further opportunity to reply to the cause notice vide reminder dated 05.01.2007, to which he submitted his reply on 15.01.2007. The matter was placed before the Board of Director of the respondent-bank in its meeting held on 17.05.2007, and the services of the workman were dismissed vide order dated 01.06.2007. The workman The present petition was filed seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the award dated 14.06.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed by the ld. Labour Court, Ambala, in Reference No.274 of 2008, and consequently workman (since deceased) in service with continuity of service, full back wages and other claims. As per the pleaded facts, the workman was initially appointed as a Clerk in the service of the Kheri Markanda Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd., Kheri Markanda, District Kurukshetra, on 08.09.1978, and was thereafter promoted to the post of Secretary Grade-B vide order dated 04, pursuant to which he was posted at the Bahadurpura Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd., Bahadurpura, District Kurukshetra. While so posted, the workman was placed under suspension, and a charge-sheet dated er alia, embezzlement of Rs 6,14,469/ to which the workman submitted his reply. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and the enquiry culminated in a report dated 26.10.2006 holding the workman guilty of the charges. A show-cause notice dated 25.11.2006 hereafter issued to the workman under Rule 27.1 of the Haryana State Central Cooperative Banks Employees Service Rules, 1975, proposing why his services should not be terminated and directing him to deposit the alleged ived by the workman on 02.12.2006.. The workman was thereafter granted a further opportunity to reply to the cause notice vide reminder dated 05.01.2007, to which he submitted his reply on 15.01.2007. The matter was placed before the Board of Director bank in its meeting held on 17.05.2007, and the services of the workman were dismissed vide order dated 01.06.2007. The workman The present petition was filed seeking issuance of a writ of he ld. Labour Court, Ambala, in Reference No.274 of 2008, and consequently workman (since deceased) in service was initially appointed as a Clerk in the service of the Kheri Markanda Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd., Kheri Markanda, District Kurukshetra, on 08.09.1978, and was B vide order dated 04, pursuant to which he was posted at the Bahadurpura Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd., Bahadurpura, District Kurukshetra. While so sheet dated er alia, embezzlement of Rs 6,14,469/-, to which the workman submitted his reply. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and the enquiry culminated in a report dated 26.10.2006 holding cause notice dated 25.11.2006 hereafter issued to the workman under Rule 27.1 of the Haryana State Central Cooperative Banks Employees Service Rules, 1975, proposing why his services should not be terminated and directing him to deposit the alleged ived by the workman on 02.12.2006.. The workman was thereafter granted a further opportunity to reply to the cause notice vide reminder dated 05.01.2007, to which he submitted his reply on 15.01.2007. The matter was placed before the Board of Directors bank in its meeting held on 17.05.2007, and the services of the workman were dismissed vide order dated 01.06.2007. The workman SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.08.21 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 2624 of 2016 (O&M) served a demand notice dated 22.04.2008 under Section 2 Disputes Act, 1947, and thereaft referred to the ld. Labour Court, Ambala and registered as Reference No.274 of 2008. The parties filed their respective claim statement and written statement, and the ld. Labour Court framed, inter alia, the follo 1. Whether the respondent the services of the workman by dint of impugned termination order after having conducted a fair and proper regular enquiry against the workman and as such the workman is n Whether the termination of the services of workman is liable to be set being wrong, illegal, null and void etc. and the workman is entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages and all the benef the continuity of service? 3. Whether the workman has no locus the present claim statement? 4. Whether the claim statement is not maintainable in the present form? 5. Whether the present claim statement is bad for mis- 6. Whether the workman has no cause of action to file the present claim statement? 7. Relief. 3. ld. Labour Court decided Issues No.1 and No.3, 4 and 6 in favour of the management, and dismissed the claim of the workman in its entirety, holding that a fair and proper enquiry had been conducted and that no prejudice had been caused to the workman. 4. conducted against the workman was neither fair nor proper, inasmuch as no witness was examined in his presence, no documents were supplied to him, No. 2624 of 2016 (O&M) --3-- served a demand notice dated 22.04.2008 under Section 2 Disputes Act, 1947, and thereafter raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the ld. Labour Court, Ambala and registered as Reference No.274 of 2008. The parties filed their respective claim statement and written statement, and the ld. Labour Court framed, inter alia, the follo 1. Whether the respondent-management has legally and validly terminated the services of the workman by dint of impugned termination order after having conducted a fair and proper regular enquiry against the workman and as such the workman is not entitled to any relief what Whether the termination of the services of workman is liable to be set being wrong, illegal, null and void etc. and the workman is entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages and all the benef the continuity of service? 3. Whether the workman has no locus the present claim statement? 4. Whether the claim statement is not maintainable in the present form? 5. Whether the present claim statement is -joinder of the parties and non-joinder of the necessary parties? 6. Whether the workman has no cause of action to file the present claim statement? 7. Relief. Vide the impugned award dated 14.06.2011 (Annexure P ld. Labour Court decided Issues No.1 and No.3, 4 and 6 in favour of the management, and dismissed the claim of the workman in its entirety, holding that a fair and proper enquiry had been conducted and that no prejudice had been caused to the workman. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) contends that the enquiry conducted against the workman was neither fair nor proper, inasmuch as no witness was examined in his presence, no documents were supplied to him, served a demand notice dated 22.04.2008 under Section 2-A of the Industrial er raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the ld. Labour Court, Ambala and registered as Reference No.274 of 2008. The parties filed their respective claim statement and written statement, and the ld. Labour Court framed, inter alia, the following issues: management has legally and validly terminated the services of the workman by dint of impugned termination order after having conducted a fair and proper regular enquiry against the workman ot entitled to any relief what-so-ever? 2. Whether the termination of the services of workman is liable to be set-aside being wrong, illegal, null and void etc. and the workman is entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages and all the benefits including the continuity of service? 3. Whether the workman has no locus-standi to file the present claim statement? 4. Whether the claim statement is not maintainable in the present form? 5. Whether the present claim statement is -joinder of the necessary parties? 6. Whether the workman has no cause of action to file the present claim Vide the impugned award dated 14.06.2011 (Annexure P-4), the ld. Labour Court decided Issues No.1 and 2 against the workman, Issues No.3, 4 and 6 in favour of the management, and dismissed the claim of the workman in its entirety, holding that a fair and proper enquiry had been conducted and that no prejudice had been caused to the workman. ounsel for the petitioner(s) contends that the enquiry conducted against the workman was neither fair nor proper, inasmuch as no witness was examined in his presence, no documents were supplied to him, A of the Industrial er raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the ld. Labour Court, Ambala and registered as Reference No.274 of 2008. The parties filed their respective claim statement and written wing issues: management has legally and validly terminated the services of the workman by dint of impugned termination order after having conducted a fair and proper regular enquiry against the workman ever? 2. aside being wrong, illegal, null and void etc. and the workman is entitled to its including standi to file the present claim statement? 4. Whether the claim statement is not maintainable in the present form? 5. Whether the present claim statement is joinder of the necessary parties? 6. Whether the workman has no cause of action to file the present claim 4), the 2 against the workman, Issues No.3, 4 and 6 in favour of the management, and dismissed the claim of the workman in its entirety, holding that a fair and proper enquiry had been ounsel for the petitioner(s) contends that the enquiry conducted against the workman was neither fair nor proper, inasmuch as no witness was examined in his presence, no documents were supplied to him, SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.08.21 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 2624 of 2016 (O&M) and he was not permitted to cross the Enquiry Officer, in his own cross Court, admitted that the enquiry was completed within a single day and within two hours, which itself points to the fact that the enquiry was conducted in a perfu impugned award is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. It is further contended that the copy of the enquiry report was never supplied to the workman, causing serious prejudice to him and viti disciplinary process, and that no personal hearing was afforded to him before his dismissal. Learned counsel further submits that the workman had relied upon numerous documents on record to demonstrate that no embezzlement was ever detecte and Service Society Ltd. during periodic fortnightly and monthly inspections and audits, and that the respondent provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19 services. 5. same set of allegations, an FIR was registered against the workman and that he has since been acquitted vide judgment dated 11.11.2011, which, it i submitted, demonstrates that the charge of embezzlement was never established against him. Learned counsel submits that the workman could not challenge the impugned award earlier as he was first lodged in jail in the said criminal case and, thereafter, h disease, remained under treatment in different hospitals. therefore prays for setting aside of the impugned award. No. 2624 of 2016 (O&M) --4-- and he was not permitted to cross-examine any witness. the Enquiry Officer, in his own cross-examination before the ld. Labour Court, admitted that the enquiry was completed within a single day and within two hours, which itself points to the fact that the enquiry was conducted in a perfunctory manner and was not fair and proper, therefore the impugned award is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. It is further contended that the copy of the enquiry report was never supplied to the workman, causing serious prejudice to him and viti disciplinary process, and that no personal hearing was afforded to him before his dismissal. Learned counsel further submits that the workman had relied upon numerous documents on record to demonstrate that no embezzlement was ever detected during his posting at the Bahadurpura Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd. during periodic fortnightly and monthly inspections and audits, and that the respondent-bank did not comply with the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19 Learned counsel also places reliance on the fact that, on the very same set of allegations, an FIR was registered against the workman and that he has since been acquitted vide judgment dated 11.11.2011, which, it i submitted, demonstrates that the charge of embezzlement was never established against him. Learned counsel submits that the workman could not challenge the impugned award earlier as he was first lodged in jail in the said criminal case and, thereafter, his son, who was suffering from kidney disease, remained under treatment in different hospitals. therefore prays for setting aside of the impugned award. examine any witness. It is contended that examination before the ld. Labour Court, admitted that the enquiry was completed within a single day and within two hours, which itself points to the fact that the enquiry was nctory manner and was not fair and proper, therefore the impugned award is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. It is further contended that the copy of the enquiry report was never supplied to the workman, causing serious prejudice to him and vitiating the entire disciplinary process, and that no personal hearing was afforded to him before his dismissal. Learned counsel further submits that the workman had relied upon numerous documents on record to demonstrate that no embezzlement d during his posting at the Bahadurpura Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd. during periodic fortnightly and monthly inspections bank did not comply with the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before terminating his Learned counsel also places reliance on the fact that, on the very same set of allegations, an FIR was registered against the workman and that he has since been acquitted vide judgment dated 11.11.2011, which, it i submitted, demonstrates that the charge of embezzlement was never established against him. Learned counsel submits that the workman could not challenge the impugned award earlier as he was first lodged in jail in the said is son, who was suffering from kidney disease, remained under treatment in different hospitals. Learned counsel therefore prays for setting aside of the impugned award. It is contended that examination before the ld. Labour Court, admitted that the enquiry was completed within a single day and within two hours, which itself points to the fact that the enquiry was nctory manner and was not fair and proper, therefore the impugned award is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. It is further contended that the copy of the enquiry report was never supplied to the ating the entire disciplinary process, and that no personal hearing was afforded to him before his dismissal. Learned counsel further submits that the workman had relied upon numerous documents on record to demonstrate that no embezzlement d during his posting at the Bahadurpura Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd. during periodic fortnightly and monthly inspections bank did not comply with the mandatory 47 before terminating his Learned counsel also places reliance on the fact that, on the very same set of allegations, an FIR was registered against the workman and that he has since been acquitted vide judgment dated 11.11.2011, which, it is submitted, demonstrates that the charge of embezzlement was never established against him. Learned counsel submits that the workman could not challenge the impugned award earlier as he was first lodged in jail in the said is son, who was suffering from kidney counsel SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.08.21 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 2624 of 2016 (O&M) 6. for respondents workman before the ld. Labour Court was itself not maintainable, and a full and fair departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice; that the workman was s chargesheet dated 15.12.2005 and submitted a detailed reply which itself contained material admissions, including a reference to the role of Shri Mohan Lal, Clerk/Cashier, and an acknowledgment that the workman had signed the relevant record contrary to the workman's assertion, that a copy of the enquiry report was in fact supplied to him pursuant to his own representation dated 04.12.2006 and was duly received by him under his signatures on 15.1 before the show was passed on 01.06.2007. It is further contended that the workman was granted an additional opportunity to reply to the show reminder dated 05.01.200 before the matter was placed before the Board of Directors As far as the plea of criminal acquittal, it is contended that departmental and criminal proceedings operate in different fields and rest on differ proof, and that the acquittal of the workman in the criminal case does not, by itself, entitle him to reinstatement in the departmental proceedings. It is accordingly urged that the findings of the ld. Labour Court are based on cogent evid interference under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 7. record. No. 2624 of 2016 (O&M) --5-- Per contra, learned State counsel as also learned counsel for the for respondents No.2 and 4 contend that the claim statement filed by the workman before the ld. Labour Court was itself not maintainable, and a full and fair departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice; that the workman was s chargesheet dated 15.12.2005 and submitted a detailed reply which itself contained material admissions, including a reference to the role of Shri Mohan Lal, Clerk/Cashier, and an acknowledgment that the workman had signed the relevant records in good faith. It is specifically contended, contrary to the workman's assertion, that a copy of the enquiry report was in fact supplied to him pursuant to his own representation dated 04.12.2006 and was duly received by him under his signatures on 15.1 before the show-cause notice was answered and the final order of dismissal was passed on 01.06.2007. It is further contended that the workman was granted an additional opportunity to reply to the show reminder dated 05.01.2007, to which he submitted his reply on 15.01.2007, before the matter was placed before the Board of Directors As far as the plea of criminal acquittal, it is contended that departmental and criminal proceedings operate in different fields and rest on differ proof, and that the acquittal of the workman in the criminal case does not, by itself, entitle him to reinstatement in the departmental proceedings. It is accordingly urged that the findings of the ld. Labour Court are based on cogent evidence, are neither perverse nor without evidence, and call for no interference under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Per contra, learned State counsel as also learned counsel for the No.2 and 4 contend that the claim statement filed by the workman before the ld. Labour Court was itself not maintainable, and a full and fair departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice; that the workman was served with the chargesheet dated 15.12.2005 and submitted a detailed reply which itself contained material admissions, including a reference to the role of Shri Mohan Lal, Clerk/Cashier, and an acknowledgment that the workman had s in good faith. It is specifically contended, contrary to the workman's assertion, that a copy of the enquiry report was in fact supplied to him pursuant to his own representation dated 04.12.2006 and was duly received by him under his signatures on 15.12.2006, well cause notice was answered and the final order of dismissal was passed on 01.06.2007. It is further contended that the workman was granted an additional opportunity to reply to the show-cause notice vide 7, to which he submitted his reply on 15.01.2007, before the matter was placed before the Board of Directors As far as the plea of criminal acquittal, it is contended that departmental and criminal proceedings operate in different fields and rest on different standards of proof, and that the acquittal of the workman in the criminal case does not, by itself, entitle him to reinstatement in the departmental proceedings. It is accordingly urged that the findings of the ld. Labour Court are based on ence, are neither perverse nor without evidence, and call for no interference under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Per contra, learned State counsel as also learned counsel for the No.2 and 4 contend that the claim statement filed by the workman before the ld. Labour Court was itself not maintainable, and a full and fair departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the erved with the chargesheet dated 15.12.2005 and submitted a detailed reply which itself contained material admissions, including a reference to the role of Shri Mohan Lal, Clerk/Cashier, and an acknowledgment that the workman had s in good faith. It is specifically contended, contrary to the workman's assertion, that a copy of the enquiry report was in fact supplied to him pursuant to his own representation dated 04.12.2006 2.2006, well cause notice was answered and the final order of dismissal was passed on 01.06.2007. It is further contended that the workman was cause notice vide 7, to which he submitted his reply on 15.01.2007, before the matter was placed before the Board of Directors As far as the plea of criminal acquittal, it is contended that departmental and criminal ent standards of proof, and that the acquittal of the workman in the criminal case does not, by itself, entitle him to reinstatement in the departmental proceedings. It is accordingly urged that the findings of the ld. Labour Court are based on ence, are neither perverse nor without evidence, and call for no I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.08.21 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 2624 of 2016 (O&M) 8. jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with findings recorded by a Labour Court on the basis of evidence is well settled and narrow. This Court does not sit as a court of evidence or to substitute its own view for that of the ld. Labour Court merely because another view is possible. Interference is warranted only where the findings are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or where the enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice or the prescribed procedure Reference in the said regard can be made to Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749; Anoop Sharma v. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 (2010) 5 SCC 497). 9. was never supplied to him, causing prejudice, is not borne out by the record. A perusal of the reply filed by respondents No.2 and 4 and (Annexure R 2&4/1), reveals that a copy of the enquiry report was in fact furnished to the workman on his own request dated 04.12.2006, and was duly received by him under his signatures on 15.12.2006 well before the show was answered and the final order workman was further granted an additional opportunity, vide reminder dated 05.01.2007, to which he submitted his reply on 15.01.2007. In these circumstances, the contentions that no copy of the enquiry report was supplied and that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the workman are contrary to the documentary record and cannot be sustained. 10. was duly served upon the workman, that he submitt No. 2624 of 2016 (O&M) --6-- The scope of interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with findings recorded by a Labour Court on the basis of evidence is well settled and narrow. This Court does not sit as a court of evidence or to substitute its own view for that of the ld. Labour Court merely because another view is possible. Interference is warranted only where the findings are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or where the iry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice or the prescribed procedure Reference in the said regard can be made to Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749; Anoop Sharma v. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 (2010) 5 SCC 497). The principal grievance of the workman that the enquiry report was never supplied to him, causing prejudice, is not borne out by the record. A perusal of the reply filed by respondents No.2 and 4 and (Annexure R 2&4/1), reveals that a copy of the enquiry report was in fact furnished to the workman on his own request dated 04.12.2006, and was duly received by him under his signatures on 15.12.2006 well before the show was answered and the final order of dismissal was passed on 01.06.2007. The workman was further granted an additional opportunity, vide reminder dated 05.01.2007, to which he submitted his reply on 15.01.2007. In these circumstances, the contentions that no copy of the enquiry report was supplied and that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the workman are contrary to the documentary record and cannot be sustained. Still further a perusal of record reveals that the charge was duly served upon the workman, that he submitt The scope of interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with findings recorded by a Labour Court on the basis of evidence is well settled and narrow. This Court does not sit as a court of appeal to re-appreciate the evidence or to substitute its own view for that of the ld. Labour Court merely because another view is possible. Interference is warranted only where the findings are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or where the iry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice or the prescribed procedure Reference in the said regard can be made to B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749; Anoop Sharma v. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1, Panipat (Haryana), The principal grievance of the workman that the enquiry report was never supplied to him, causing prejudice, is not borne out by the record. A perusal of the reply filed by respondents No.2 and 4 and (Annexure R 2&4/1), reveals that a copy of the enquiry report was in fact furnished to the workman on his own request dated 04.12.2006, and was duly received by him under his signatures on 15.12.2006 well before the show-cause notice of dismissal was passed on 01.06.2007. The workman was further granted an additional opportunity, vide reminder dated 05.01.2007, to which he submitted his reply on 15.01.2007. In these circumstances, the contentions that no copy of the enquiry report was supplied and that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the workman are contrary to the documentary record and cannot be sustained. Still further a perusal of record reveals that the charge-sheet was duly served upon the workman, that he submitted a detailed reply which The scope of interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with findings recorded by a Labour Court on the basis of evidence is well settled appreciate the evidence or to substitute its own view for that of the ld. Labour Court merely because another view is possible. Interference is warranted only where the findings are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or where the iry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice or the B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749; Anoop Sharma v. , Panipat (Haryana), The principal grievance of the workman that the enquiry report was never supplied to him, causing prejudice, is not borne out by the record. A perusal of the reply filed by respondents No.2 and 4 and (Annexure R- 2&4/1), reveals that a copy of the enquiry report was in fact furnished to the workman on his own request dated 04.12.2006, and was duly received by cause notice of dismissal was passed on 01.06.2007. The workman was further granted an additional opportunity, vide reminder dated 05.01.2007, to which he submitted his reply on 15.01.2007. In these circumstances, the contentions that no copy of the enquiry report was supplied and that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the workman are sheet ed a detailed reply which SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.08.21 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 2624 of 2016 (O&M) itself contained material admissions including a reference to the role of Shri Mohan Lal, C relevant records in good faith. 11. the enquiry was fair and proper, and that no prejudice was caused to the workman by the manner in which it was conducted, is based on evidence and cannot be said to be perverse. 12. further undermines his case. Appearing as WW existence of the charge own signed reply (Ex.M5), could neither disown his signatures nor deny having received a show contradiction as duly noticed by the ld. Labour Court, cannot furnish a ground for interference in writ jurisdiction, since it goes to the credibility of the workman's own version and not to any infirmity in the ld. Lab appreciation of evidence. 13. workman's case. It is well settled that departmental and criminal proceedings operate in different fields and rest on different standards of proof; the fo on preponderance of probability, the latter on proof beyond reasonable doubt and that an acquittal in a criminal case does not ipso facto entitle a delinquent employee to relief in departmental proceedings founded on the same allegations. The Labour C departmental action on the evidence and material produced before it, which stood independently established, irrespective of the subsequent criminal acquittal. No. 2624 of 2016 (O&M) --7-- itself contained material admissions including a reference to the role of Shri Mohan Lal, Clerk, and an acknowledgment that the workman had signed the relevant records in good faith. In these circumstances, the finding of t the enquiry was fair and proper, and that no prejudice was caused to the workman by the manner in which it was conducted, is based on evidence and cannot be said to be perverse. Even otherwise, the workman's own conduct in th further undermines his case. Appearing as WW existence of the charge-sheet and the enquiry, yet, when confronted with his own signed reply (Ex.M5), could neither disown his signatures nor deny having received a show-cause notice before dismissal. Such self contradiction as duly noticed by the ld. Labour Court, cannot furnish a ground for interference in writ jurisdiction, since it goes to the credibility of the workman's own version and not to any infirmity in the ld. Lab appreciation of evidence. The plea of criminal acquittal also does not advance the workman's case. It is well settled that departmental and criminal proceedings operate in different fields and rest on different standards of proof; the fo on preponderance of probability, the latter on proof beyond reasonable doubt and that an acquittal in a criminal case does not ipso facto entitle a delinquent employee to relief in departmental proceedings founded on the same allegations. The Labour Court was required to examine the legality of the departmental action on the evidence and material produced before it, which stood independently established, irrespective of the subsequent criminal itself contained material admissions including a reference to the role of Shri erk, and an acknowledgment that the workman had signed the In these circumstances, the finding of the ld. Labour Court that the enquiry was fair and proper, and that no prejudice was caused to the workman by the manner in which it was conducted, is based on evidence and Even otherwise, the workman's own conduct in the witness-box further undermines his case. Appearing as WW-1, he denied the very sheet and the enquiry, yet, when confronted with his own signed reply (Ex.M5), could neither disown his signatures nor deny e notice before dismissal. Such self contradiction as duly noticed by the ld. Labour Court, cannot furnish a ground for interference in writ jurisdiction, since it goes to the credibility of the workman's own version and not to any infirmity in the ld. Labour Court's The plea of criminal acquittal also does not advance the workman's case. It is well settled that departmental and criminal proceedings operate in different fields and rest on different standards of proof; the former on preponderance of probability, the latter on proof beyond reasonable doubt and that an acquittal in a criminal case does not ipso facto entitle a delinquent employee to relief in departmental proceedings founded on the same ourt was required to examine the legality of the departmental action on the evidence and material produced before it, which stood independently established, irrespective of the subsequent criminal itself contained material admissions including a reference to the role of Shri erk, and an acknowledgment that the workman had signed the he ld. Labour Court that the enquiry was fair and proper, and that no prejudice was caused to the workman by the manner in which it was conducted, is based on evidence and box 1, he denied the very sheet and the enquiry, yet, when confronted with his own signed reply (Ex.M5), could neither disown his signatures nor deny e notice before dismissal. Such self- contradiction as duly noticed by the ld. Labour Court, cannot furnish a ground for interference in writ jurisdiction, since it goes to the credibility of our Court's The plea of criminal acquittal also does not advance the workman's case. It is well settled that departmental and criminal proceedings rmer on preponderance of probability, the latter on proof beyond reasonable doubt and that an acquittal in a criminal case does not ipso facto entitle a delinquent employee to relief in departmental proceedings founded on the same ourt was required to examine the legality of the departmental action on the evidence and material produced before it, which stood independently established, irrespective of the subsequent criminal SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.08.21 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 2624 of 2016 (O&M) 14. view that the impugned award dated 14.06.2011 does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity or patent illegality warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 15. 16. August 13, 2026 SwarnjitS No. 2624 of 2016 (O&M) --8-- For the reasons recorded above, this Court view that the impugned award dated 14.06.2011 does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity or patent illegality warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. August 13, 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No For the reasons recorded above, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned award dated 14.06.2011 does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity or patent illegality warranting interference in Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No is of the considered view that the impugned award dated 14.06.2011 does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity or patent illegality warranting interference in SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.08.21 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document