CWP-15092 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Sukhbir Singh Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and another CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. the instant writ petition, as cast under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order d P-4), vide which, the preliminary issue, “whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the management is fair and proper” him, and award dated 01.10.2015 (Annexure P was answered agains Factual Matrix 2. Clerk (Seasonal) No.2 on 31.01.1985 Charge (Seasonal) However, he was charge 15092-2016 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sukhbir Singh Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Surinder Dagar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay K. Yadav, Advocate, for Mr. R.N.Lohan, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral) The petitioner-workman has approached this Court through the instant writ petition, as cast under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order d 4), vide which, the preliminary issue, “whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the management is fair and proper” him, and award dated 01.10.2015 (Annexure P was answered against him, and his claim petition was dismissed. actual Matrix The petitioner-workman was initially appointed as Cane (Seasonal) with Palwal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. on 31.01.1985. Subsequently, he was Charge (Seasonal) and he joined the duty However, he was charge-sheeted on 17.01.1995, for having caused IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-15092-2016 Date of decision: 12.08.2025 ….Petitioner cum-Labour Court-II Faridabad ….Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI Dagar, Advocate, Mr. Ajay K. Yadav, Advocate, for R.N.Lohan, Advocate, for respondent No.2. workman has approached this Court through the instant writ petition, as cast under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 29.08.2012 (Annexure 4), vide which, the preliminary issue, “whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the management is fair and proper”, was decided against him, and award dated 01.10.2015 (Annexure P-7), whereby, the reference t him, and his claim petition was dismissed. workman was initially appointed as Cane- operative Sugar Mills Ltd.-respondent he was promoted as Centre-In- the duty as such on 14.02.1992. sheeted on 17.01.1995, for having caused 5 II Faridabad workman has approached this Court through the instant writ petition, as cast under Article 226 and 227 of the ated 29.08.2012 (Annexure 4), vide which, the preliminary issue, “whether the domestic enquiry was decided against reference - respondent - as such on 14.02.1992. sheeted on 17.01.1995, for having caused AMIT KUMAR 2025.08.29 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-15092 shortage of sugarcane valuing Rs.1,54,818/ 1990-91. Consequently, an enquiry into the matter was terms of the Certified Standing Orders of the Mill in Para Nos. 21(4) and 21(8). opportunities to join the enquiry proceedings, but he and finally, having found the charges petitioner was served with repeated show cause notices dated 07.12.1999 and 03.05.2000, for personal hearing, but submitted any response thereto, nor competent authority. an order dated 30.01.2001, from service. Fetching grievance, the petitioner order by raising an industrial dispute. authority sent a reference to the Industrial Tribunal Faridabad, to adjudicate on the issue, namely Sukhbir Singh te entitled to 3. issues, out of which, the preliminary issue the domestic enquiry 29.08.2012. and the claim petition was dismissed, vide award dated 05.09.2012. Feeling aggrieved, a writ petition before this Court, i.e. CWP was allowed, 15092-2016 -2- shortage of sugarcane valuing Rs.1,54,818/ 91. Consequently, an enquiry into the matter was terms of the Certified Standing Orders of the Mill in Para Nos. 21(4) and 21(8). The petitioner-workman was afforded numerous opportunities to join the enquiry proceedings, but he finally, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on having found the charges against the petitioner petitioner was served with repeated show cause notices dated 07.12.1999 and 03.05.2000, for personal hearing, but submitted any response thereto, nor caused appearance before the competent authority. Resultantly, respondent No.2 an order dated 30.01.2001, thereby, dismissing the petitioner from service. Fetching grievance, the petitioner order by raising an industrial dispute. authority sent a reference to the Industrial Tribunal Faridabad, to adjudicate on the issue, “whether services of the workman namely Sukhbir Singh terminated illegally? If so, what relief he is entitled to?” Proceeding with the matter, t issues, out of which, the preliminary issue the domestic enquiry, was answered against him, vide order dated 29.08.2012. Similarly, other issues were and the claim petition was dismissed, vide award dated 05.09.2012. Feeling aggrieved, said order and award were assailed by t a writ petition before this Court, i.e. CWP was allowed, thereby remanding the matter shortage of sugarcane valuing Rs.1,54,818/-, for the period 1984-85 to 91. Consequently, an enquiry into the matter was conducted, in terms of the Certified Standing Orders of the Mill in Para Nos. 21(2), workman was afforded numerous opportunities to join the enquiry proceedings, but he choose not to appear submitted his report on 03.12.1998, against the petitioner proved. Whereupon, the petitioner was served with repeated show cause notices dated 27.11.1999, 07.12.1999 and 03.05.2000, for personal hearing, but again, neither he caused appearance before the Resultantly, respondent No.2-Management passed dismissing the petitioner-workman from service. Fetching grievance, the petitioner had challenged the said order by raising an industrial dispute. Whereupon, the competent authority sent a reference to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, “whether services of the workman rminated illegally? If so, what relief he is Proceeding with the matter, the Tribunal framed three issues, out of which, the preliminary issue, i.e. with regard to legality of was answered against him, vide order dated ther issues were also decided against petitioner, and the claim petition was dismissed, vide award dated 05.09.2012. said order and award were assailed by the petitioner in a writ petition before this Court, i.e. CWP-25077-2012. The writ petition remanding the matter to the learned Tribunal, to 85 to conducted, in 21(2), workman was afforded numerous to appear , . Whereupon, the 1.1999, he caused appearance before the Management passed workman challenged the said , the competent II, “whether services of the workman rminated illegally? If so, what relief he is he Tribunal framed three with regard to legality of was answered against him, vide order dated , and the claim petition was dismissed, vide award dated 05.09.2012. he petitioner in The writ petition to the learned Tribunal, to AMIT KUMAR 2025.08.29 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-15092 decide afresh, vide order dated 27.07.2015. The relevant part of the order is extracted herein Submissions by learned counsel for the contesting parties 4. was ever proceeded against punishment awarded to him is apparently, disproport leveled against the petitioner. 30.01.2001, require considered the claim of the petitioner and evidence in its right perspective. preposterous 5. submits that join enquiry 15092-2016 -3- decide afresh, vide order dated 27.07.2015. The relevant part of the order is extracted hereinafter:- “Thus, the matter needs to be re being so, the petition is allowed. Award dated 05.09.2012 (Annexure P5) is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court decided, afresh. As the petitioner has also assailed the order dated 29.08.2012 (Annexure P4), vide which the issue as regards the fairness of domestic inquiry was decided against him, counsel for the parties are ad idem that it would be open to the petitioner to assail the sai necessitated, post decision of the Labour Court, on merits. Parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court, Faridabad, on 24.08.2015. Records of the Labour Court be returned.” Submissions by learned counsel for the contesting parties Learned counsel for petitioner submits that no opportunity given to the petitioner to establish his innocence proceeded against ex parte, by the Enquiry Officer punishment awarded to him is apparently, disproport leveled against the petitioner. Therefore, 30.01.2001, required interference. However, considered the claim of the petitioner and evidence in its right perspective. In such circumstances, preposterous, and thus, are liable to be set aside. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner was not only granted enquiry proceedings, which remained pending for about three years, decide afresh, vide order dated 27.07.2015. The relevant part of the order Thus, the matter needs to be re-adjudicated. That being so, the petition is allowed. Award dated 05.09.2012 (Annexure P5) is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Labour Court-II, Faridabad, to be e petitioner has also assailed the order dated 29.08.2012 (Annexure P4), vide which the issue as regards the fairness of domestic inquiry was decided against him, counsel for the parties are ad idem that it would be open to the petitioner to assail the said order, if necessitated, post decision of the Labour Court, on merits. Parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court, Faridabad, on 24.08.2015. Records of the Labour Court be Submissions by learned counsel for the contesting parties: petitioner submits that no opportunity given to the petitioner to establish his innocence, as he was , by the Enquiry Officer. Moreover, punishment awarded to him is apparently, disproportionate to the charges Therefore, the order of termination dated interference. However, Ld. Tribunal has not considered the claim of the petitioner and evidence in its right , impugned orders/awards are liable to be set aside. , learned counsel for the respondent-Management the petitioner was not only granted repeated opportunities to , which remained pending for about three years, decide afresh, vide order dated 27.07.2015. The relevant part of the order adjudicated. That being so, the petition is allowed. Award dated 05.09.2012 (Annexure P5) is set aside. The matter is remitted to the II, Faridabad, to be e petitioner has also assailed the order dated 29.08.2012 (Annexure P4), vide which the issue as regards the fairness of domestic inquiry was decided against him, counsel for the parties are ad idem that it would be d order, if necessitated, post decision of the Labour Court, on merits. Parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court, Faridabad, on 24.08.2015. Records of the Labour Court be petitioner submits that no opportunity , as he was . Moreover, s the order of termination dated Tribunal has not considered the claim of the petitioner and evidence in its right are Management opportunities to , which remained pending for about three years, AMIT KUMAR 2025.08.29 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-15092 but also, post submit his Therefore writ petition merits dismissal. Analysis 6. order dated 29.08.2012 Officer conducted Mill in Para Nos.21(2), 21(4) and 21(8), and with a series of proved on record sent to petitioner, thereof. Further, Ex.M24, which that he was, indeed, given proceedings any stage, petitioner against 03.12.1998. petitioner vide show cause notices dated however, he circumstances, it is crystal clear that petitioner fence-sitter all through, while watching the However, when the enquiry from service, he raised the issue of infraction of natural justice. 15092-2016 -4- post conclusion thereof, three notices were served upon him his response. However, he opted to remain Therefore, there was no infraction of principles of natural justi writ petition merits dismissal. What reflects from the combined reading dated 29.08.2012 and award dated 05.09.2012 Officer conducted enquiry, as per the Certified Standing Orders of the Mill in Para Nos.21(2), 21(4) and 21(8), and a series of notices to join enquiry. proved on record the copies of telegram as Ex.M20 to M22, petitioner, and Mark-A to Mark-F, were the copies posta thereof. Further, the Management proved on record , which were the letters received from that he was, indeed, given adequate opportunity to join the enquiry proceedings. However, he opted not to join the enquiry any stage, which left Enquiry Officer with no oth petitioner against ex parte. Accordingly, 03.12.1998. Not just that, even post submission of petitioner was afforded repeated personal show cause notices dated 27.11.1999, 07.12.1999 and 03.05.2000 however, he was hell-bent not to appear circumstances, it is crystal clear that petitioner sitter all through, while watching the However, when the enquiry proceedings from service, he raised the issue of infraction of natural justice. , three notices were served upon him to pted to remain conveniently silent. f principles of natural justice, and the combined reading of the impugned and award dated 05.09.2012, is that the Enquiry as per the Certified Standing Orders of the Mill in Para Nos.21(2), 21(4) and 21(8), and petitioner was duly served enquiry. In this regard, Management copies of telegram as Ex.M20 to M22, that were F, were the copies postal receipts the Management proved on record Ex.M23 and were the letters received from petitioner, to substantiate opportunity to join the enquiry opted not to join the enquiry proceedings, at with no other option, but to proceed Accordingly, he submitted enquiry report on post submission of enquiry report, personal hearings by the Management 27.11.1999, 07.12.1999 and 03.05.2000, not to appear before the authorities. In such circumstances, it is crystal clear that petitioner voluntarily remained a sitter all through, while watching the departmental proceedings. proceedings culminated into his dismissal from service, he raised the issue of infraction of natural justice. In this to silent. ce, and the impugned Enquiry as per the Certified Standing Orders of the served Management that were receipts M23 and petitioner, to substantiate opportunity to join the enquiry at to proceed enquiry report on , by the Management , . In such remained a departmental proceedings. culminated into his dismissal this AMIT KUMAR 2025.08.29 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-15092 view of the matter petitioner, who had not opted to join the enquiry proceedings and remained a principles of natural justice. himself had not availed repeated opportunities 7. though an FIR was registered against the petitioner, but he earned acquittal therein. However, petitioner, at all. case, by itself, cannot be a ground to set aside the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority. It does not automatically result in vitiating the disciplinary proceedings. Needless to assert that standa proof, required to establish the charges against the accused in a criminal trial, and proceedings are altogether different. the allegations levell conclude disproportionate. 8. 12.08.202 Ak Sharma 15092-2016 -5- view of the matter, this Court, in no uncertain terms, petitioner, who had not opted to join the enquiry proceedings and remained a fence sitter, cannot raise hue and cry of infraction of principles of natural justice. Rather, it is the case, where himself had not availed repeated opportunities At this juncture, this Court is though an FIR was registered against the petitioner, but he earned acquittal therein. However, this would not advance the case of the petitioner, at all. To say so, reason is obvious, that case, by itself, cannot be a ground to set aside the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority. It does not automatically result in vitiating the disciplinary proceedings. Needless to assert that standa required to establish the charges against the accused in a criminal and misconduct against the delinquent employee in the disciplinary proceedings are altogether different. Thus, the allegations levelled against petitioner, this Court conclude that the punishment, petitioner was saddled with disproportionate. In summa, the instant writ petition is .2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable , in no uncertain terms, is of the opinion that petitioner, who had not opted to join the enquiry proceedings and , cannot raise hue and cry of infraction of Rather, it is the case, where petitioner himself had not availed repeated opportunities granted to him. At this juncture, this Court is reminded of the fact that though an FIR was registered against the petitioner, but he earned this would not advance the case of the obvious, that acquittal in a criminal case, by itself, cannot be a ground to set aside the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority. It does not automatically result in vitiating the disciplinary proceedings. Needless to assert that standard of required to establish the charges against the accused in a criminal misconduct against the delinquent employee in the disciplinary Thus, considering the seriousness of petitioner, this Court has no hesitation to petitioner was saddled with, is not at all the instant writ petition is dismissed. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No is of the opinion that petitioner, who had not opted to join the enquiry proceedings and , cannot raise hue and cry of infraction of petitioner reminded of the fact that though an FIR was registered against the petitioner, but he earned this would not advance the case of the acquittal in a criminal case, by itself, cannot be a ground to set aside the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority. It does not automatically result in rd of required to establish the charges against the accused in a criminal misconduct against the delinquent employee in the disciplinary he seriousness of has no hesitation to is not at all AMIT KUMAR 2025.08.29 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document