BALJINDER SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BALJINDER Singh petitioner, who was the workman has filed the instant writ petition challenging the award dated 8.4.1985 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as 'the Labour'), vide which the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service without back wages.

(2.) THE petitioner was working as Conductor with the Punjab Roadways, Muktsar. His services were terminated on 10.4.1981 after holding a regular enquiry by the respondents. He raised an industrial dispute and the matter was referred by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court for its adjudication. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties before the Labour Court the following issues were framed ; -

(3.) THE contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once it was held by the Labour Court that the domestic enquiry was not conducted according to the rules, then the respondent -Management should not have been allowed to lead evidence to justify its action for terminating the services of the petitioner. It was further submitted that when the respondent -Management was allowed to lead the additional evidence for justifying its order of termination of the services of the petitioner, the petitioner should also have been allowed to rebut that evidence. However, no opportunity was granted to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of the aforesaid additional evidence, the Labour Court has wrongly decided issue No. 2 and it has been wrongly held that the petitioner -workman has embezzled some amount collected by him from passengers without issuing tickets. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the termination of the services of the petitioner was wholly illegal and he should have been reinstated with continuity of service with full back wages, and the Labour Court was jot justified to deny the back wages to him. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Hari Palace, Ambala City v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Anr.,1 (1979)81 P.L.R. 720 (F.B.). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even if the order of termination is justified by the management before the Labour Court, the termination of the workman would be effective from the date of award of the Labour Court and not from the date on which the Management had terminated the services of the petitioner. Therefore, in no circumstance, the petitioner could have been denied the salary from 10.4.1981 to 8.4.1986. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. and etc. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha and Ors.2 A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1896 and a decision of this Court in Zora Singh v. The Koom Kalan Coop. Agri. Service Society Ltd Koom Kalan and Anr.3 Civil Writ Petition No. 2212 of 1986 decided on 12.8.1986.