CWP No. 6488 of 2018 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (231) CWP No. 6488 of 2018 Date of Decision: 09.07.2026 Avtar Singh .....Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala .....Respondents and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Raj Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Sharma, Advocate with Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3. **** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1. By way of the present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the award dated 30.10.2017 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No. 1. 2. The brief facts for disposal of the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as Driver with the respondent-department on 06.3.1982 and he worked upto 25.11.2009. Vide judgment dated 19.8.2024, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, the petitioner was convicted under Section 304-A IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 02 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-. The petitioner approached this Court by way of Criminal Revision No. 819 of 2009. Vide GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.15 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 6488 of 2018 -2- order dated 12.5.2009, passed by this Court, the sentence of imprisonment was reduced from 02 years to 01 year, while maintaining the fine. The reduction warrant was issued by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Patiala on 01.9.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner was released from jail on 09.1.2010. It is alleged by the petitioner that during the period when he was in jail, an ex parte enquiry had been conducted by the respondents concerned regarding the absence of the petitioner, whereafter vide order dated 25.11.2009 passed by respondent No. 3, the services of the petitioner were terminated. Being aggrieved therefrom, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 26.4.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute by serving a demand notice. On failure of conciliation proceedings, the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala-respondent No. 1 by the authority concerned under Section 2-A and Section 10(1)(c) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, vide impugned order dated 30.10.2017 (Annexure P-11), the said reference was answered against the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned award deserves to be set aside as the learned Industrial Tribunal has failed to appreciate the material facts and evidence on record. It is submitted that the services rendered by the petitioner, which come to about 27 years, have been terminated without any monetary benefits. During the said period no complaint was ever made against the petitioner. However, the said fact has been completely overlooked by the authorities concerned. Moreover, the petitioner has been convicted under Section 304-A IPC, an offence which does not involve moral turpitude. It is also submitted that the enquiry conducted by the respondents was not in accordance with the principles of enquiry. During the period when the departmental enquiry was conducted, GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.15 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 6488 of 2018 -3- the petitioner was in jail and the said fact was in the knowledge of the respondents concerned. However, despite having such knowledge, instead of serving the petitioner in a proper and legal manner, an ex parte enquiry was conducted, which is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel further submits that even the reference filed against the termination order was dismissed without considering the fact that the other similarly situated employees, who had been convicted by the Hon’ble Courts, were in service. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned orders and the award be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 opposes the present petition. It is submitted that the plea of the petitioner- workman that he was in continuous service upto 25.11.2009 is false, as is evident from the record, which reflects that the petitioner remained absent from duty w.e.f. 19.3.2009. Moreover, the order of termination was passed after a fair and proper enquiry being conducted by the enquiry officer concerned. Charge sheet as well as other notices were sent by the authorities as well as by the enquiry officer to the petitioner, who did not submit any reply to the same. It is contended that the petitioner neither intimated about his imprisonment at any point of time nor any details of the jail, where the petitioner was lodged, was intimated by his family members to the authorities concerned. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner never reported for duty even after his release from jail. Furthermore, the petitioner was having knowledge of his termination from service vide order dated 25.11.2009 while undergoing imprisonment, against which he preferred the appeal dated 21.12.2009, which was dismissed by the appellate authority on 26.4.2010. It is also submitted that the learned Labour Court, after appreciating the entire evidence, rightly upheld the enquiry as well as GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.15 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 6488 of 2018 -4- the order of dismissal. 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. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-workman had been working as a Driver with the respondent-department since 06.3.1982. Thereafter, vide judgment dated 19.8.2024, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, the petitioner was convicted under Section 304- A IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment. Subsequently, he was released from jail on 09.1.2010. Since the petitioner had remained absented from duty w.e.f. 19.3.2009, the order of termination was passed on 25.11.2009. 7. It has come on record that that the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and repeated notices were dispatched to his residential address. The notices were returned with the endorsement that the petitioner was in jail. However, since no intimation with regard to the petitioner’s imprisonment and place of incarceration was provided to the respondent department either by the petitioner or his family members, an ex parte enquiry was carried out. Rather, it is the case where the petitioner remained absent from duty even after serving his sentence. It has also come on record that against the order of termination dated 25.11.2009, the petitioner filed an appeal dated 21.12.2009, wherein the appellate authority granted him full opportunity of personal hearing and, after considering his explanation dismissed the appeal on 26.4.2010, while observing that the petitioner had failed to inform his employer regarding the punishment, and thus could not avail benefits from his own wrong. It was also taken into consideration that the petitioner had been released on GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.15 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 6488 of 2018 -5- 18.01.2010, whereas, the appeal was filed on 21.12.2019. Thereafter, the matter was challenged before the Labour Court, which while dismissing the claim of the petitioner also took note of the petitioner’s own admission during his cross-examination that he never formally intimated the management either about his conviction or his imprisonment. Therefore, in view of the totality of the facts and circumstance of the case, it has concluded that the contention of the petitioner that he was denied a fair hearing, was also without substance. Therefore, in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it has been concluded that the contention of the petitioner that he was denied a fair hearing was also without substance. Moreover, the Labour Court, after relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Rishi Dev (Ex. Driver No. 194) vs. State of Haryana and others , Vol. CXLIII-(2006-2) Page 280, held that the reduction in the sentence of the petitioner has not obliterated the misconduct or effaced the consequences flowing from the conviction. Therefore, the learned Labour Court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, rightly upheld the order of dismissal dated 25.11.2009. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. Consequently, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.15 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 6488 of 2018 -6- same is hereby dismissed. 10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE July 09th, 2026 Gurpreet Singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.15 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh