HARYANA STATE Vs. DHARAM PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 10.4.2000 Annexure P -11 by which punishment of termination of his service was substituted by that of stoppage of four annual increments with cumulative effect.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner argued that the Labour Court, Hisar, had no authority to substitute the punishment awarded by the department. He has cited the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. A.K. Parul, reported in, 1999(1) RSJ 203 :, 1999(1) SCT 124 (SC). It has been held by the Supreme Court in that case that when the High Court found the charges proved, it was not justified in interfering with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, particularly when in that case, the respondent was once removed from service on the charge of corruption and reinstated. He has also cited the case of Sub Divisional Inspector of Post, Vaikam and others etc. v, Theyyam Joseph etc. . In that case, it was observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under : -

(3.) THE present writ petition, as mentioned above, has been filed challenging the award of the Labour Court. The question to be decided in this case is whether the Labour Court, Hisar, was right in substituting the punishment or not. When the Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain the award, there appears to be no reason why it should be held that it had no power of follow the statutory provisions of Section 11A of the Act. We find that the Labour Court had jurisdiction to substitute the punishment.