Maruti Suzuki India Ltd v. Jagmal Singh & ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH LPA No.2368 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision : 15.12.2017 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

....Appellant

Versus

Jagmal Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI ...

Present: Mr.D.S.Patwalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Rana, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. D.S.Dadwal, Advocate for Mr. Abha Rathore, Advocate for the caveator/respondent No.1.

...

MAHESH GROVER, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that two persons were charge sheeted on the same day regarding the same incident and both employees were dismissed on the same day. A co-employee, namely, Surender Malik approached this Court by way of CWP No.8472 of 1997 and the learned Single Judge declined interference but in the case of present respondent No.1, who was also charge sheeted similarly qua the same incident, the learned Single Judge accepted his plea resulting in the impugned order.

LPA No.2368 of 2017 (O&M) -2After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that this is a fact which should have been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we relegate the appellant to his remedies before the learned Single Judge where he is at liberty to apprise the learned Single Judge about this fact.

However, delay of 36 days in re-filing the present appeal is condoned.

Appeal stands disposed of.

(MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE 15.12.2017 (RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI) dss JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No