High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/21578/2021dismissed

Krishan Swaroop Sharma v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal And ANR

2023-11-07Mr. Justice Harsh Bunger8 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-21578-2021 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.11.2023 KRISHAN SWAROOP SHARMA

...Petitioner

Versus

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUMLABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH THROUGH ITS PRESIDING OFFICER AND ANOTHER

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present :

Mr. A.S. Pannu, Advocate and Mr. B.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner.

HARSH BUNGER, J. (ORAL) 1.

Petitioner (Krishan Swaroop Sharma) has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the Award dated 20.06.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh (here-in-after referred to as `the Tribunal'); whereby the reference of industrial dispute was answered against him.

A further prayer has been made by the petitioner for issuance of a direction to respondent No.1 to reinstate him with continuity of service and full back wages.

Briefly, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute with regard to his dismissal from service, which was referred for adjudication to the Tribunal.

As per the claim statement filed by the petitioner-workman, he was posted as a Peon-cum-Waterman at Bhikhiwind Branch, District Amritsar of the Central Bank of India (for short `the Bank'). On 12.01.1994, the petitioner was charge-sheeted for preparing a forged passbook of Account No.D252 of Sh. Arjun Singh and secondly for presenting a withdrawal slip of Rs.8900/- in the said account by forging the thumb impression of the deceased account holder and posting the withdrawal himself in the account and receiving the amount. It appears that an enquiry was conducted and thereafter, the petitioner-workman was dismissed from service.

It is the case of the petitioner-workman that he was not given the proper opportunity to defend himself as no date of enquiry was communicated to him and he was also not allowed to produce any defence evidence or to cross-examine the management-witnesses. Petitionerworkman claims that the entire enquiry was held at his back and there was no witness of tempering of record by the workman and there was also no expert evidence to prove that the alleged passbook was prepared by the petitioner-workman. It further appears that there was a confession of the workman of the charges; however, the petitioner claims that the said confession was obtained by coercion and pressure and no enquiry report had been provided to him and therefore, the order of dismissal of the petitionerworkman from service, was illegal, unjustified and against the principles of natural justice. It was also prayed that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct; accordingly, prayer for reinstatement with full back wages was made.

The afore-said claim of the petitioner was contested by the respondent-Bank; wherein the assertions of the petitioner-workman were controverted by detailing out the mode and manner, in which, the passbook was forged and also by stating the manner in which the enquiry proceedings were carried out. Accordingly, prayer for dismissal of claim petition was made.

From the pleadings of the respective parties, the following issues were framed :- "1.

Whether the confession of the workman was a result of any pressure or coercion of management? 2.

Whether the enquiry was conducted fairly and according to the principles of natural justice? 3.

Whether the evidence in enquiry was not sufficient to prove the alleged misconduct of the workman? 4.

Whether punishment awarded to the workman is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct?

To what relief the workman is entitled?

In order to substantiate his claim, the petitioner-workman examined himself and on the other hand, the respondent-Bank examined one Sh. C.R. Verma, Manager, Regional Officer, Amritsar. Reliance was placed upon the enquiry report as well as other documents. 8.

The leaned Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, rejected the claim of the petitioner by holding that the action of the management of the Central Bank of India, Amritsar to impose the punishment of dismissal from service on the workman, is legal and justified. 9.

In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

10.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the paper-book as well as impugned Award dated 20.06.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Tribunal, with his able assistance. 11.

Concededly, the impugned Award came to be passed by the Tribunal below on 20.06.2011 (Annexure P-1) and the instant writ petition has been filed in the year, 2021.

12.

In the case of Er. Darshan Singh Bhullar Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board" reported as 2011(3) S.LR. 287; a Division Bench of this Court held that the limitation as applicable in a Civil Suit would be applicable to the writ petition also. In the case of "Er. Darshan Singh Bhullar (supra), it was held as under:- "

- x - - x - -x-

#$%

!# $

'( ) *+ ! ,

" !

0 # , !

%( ,

1 # ! 2 " , !

, !# 34 )$56+7 &#

6 )*+

! "

# $", ), +6

! , !

( # !

# .

! / #

7 # ! !#

& 8! "

! , .

#7 ,

! !

9 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others Vs. T.T. Murali Babu", 2014 A.I.R. (S.C.W.) 1142 has observed as under:- "

- x - x - ( 7

! #! . 0 /

! #

! / / # 0 !

, #

, 7 0 7 7 ! !

$ 7 # # 0 #

# # ! !

# # ,

4 #

, #

7 #7 ;

;% 7 /4 # ! : # 7 ! # # 7#

# !

#! !

! # #!

/ 3

# ! ,

#7 !

7 #

# # ,

! !! #7#,! ,

# . /

6 > 3

# , #

, ,! ,#

% / % / % 13.

A perusal of the writ petition would indicate that the petitioner has given the following reason for delay in challenging the afore-said Award :- "6.

That the petitioner engaged an advocate of Panchkula to challenge the award. The counsel kept on informing the petitioner that the matter had not yet been

heard by this Court. When the petitioner made enquiry and came to know that the said advocate had not filed the writ petition. It is in this circumstances that the delay has occurred to file the present writ petition. The petitioner has made a complaint against the said advocate to the Bar Council. There is no period of limitation prescribed for filing the writ petition, but it is an established principle of law that the petition has to be filed without undue delay. The delay which has occurred is because of the circumstances mentioned hereinabove and therefore the same is liable to be condoned."

14.

The above extracted explanation sought to be rendered by the petitioner in para 6 of writ petition is general and vague in nature. The name of the advocate stated to have been engaged by the petitioner, is not forthcoming and neither the material particulars regarding date, month and year, when such counsel was engaged, is also not forthcoming. Even the date on which, the petitioner had statedly made an enquiry from the said advocate regarding the status of the writ petition is not mentioned. Although, the petitioner has stated that he has submitted a complaint against the said Advocate to the Bar Council; however, neither any detail thereof has been provided nor any such complaint has been attached to this petition. 15.

It is observed that it is very easy to put blame on a lawyer alleging his/her negligence.

16.

I find that the aforesaid general and vague averments for seeking condonation of delay of about ten years cannot be accepted as "sufficient cause" in view of the

!!" !#$%&'

& !

(

) November 07, 2023 (HARSH BUNGER) gurpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No