Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 253 (PNJ)

Ajit Singh v. Presiding Officer

2013-02-21

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2013
JUDGMENT : Satish Kumar Mittal, J This order shall dispose of nine civil writ petitions bearing Nos. 632 of 2001, 638 of 2001, 2610 of 2001, 7031 of 2001, 9768 of 2001, 9835 of 2001, 11768 of 2001, 14836 of 2001 and 16791 of 2001 in which the workmen have prayed for quashing of the common award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh and issuing direction to the respondents to grant them consequential benefits of increments from the date of demand notice. For facility of reference, the facts are extracted from C.W.P. No. 632 of 2001. 2. In the present case, all the petitioners are/were working as Conductors in Punjab Roadways on permanent basis. Their service conditions are/were governed by Punjab Civil Services Rules and for the purpose of disciplinary action, by the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970. During the tenure of their services, a few orders were passed against them withholding their increments by the respondent Management under the aforesaid Rules. The petitioners on coming to know about those orders, raised the industrial dispute through their Union u/s 2-K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said dispute was referred by the Government for its adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal. 3. Undisputedly, before the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioners did not contest the orders of imposing minor punishment. However, they contested those orders, where punishment of stoppage of annual grade increments with cumulative effect has been imposed on the ground that no enquiry was held before imposing the major punishment. In some cases, the Industrial Tribunal found that the said major punishment, i.e., stoppage of annual grade increments with cumulative effect, was imposed after holding valid enquiry and rejected the claim of the petitioners in that regard. In some cases though it was found that the respondent-Management imposed the major punishment of stoppage of annual grade increments with cumulative effect without holding the enquiry, but declined to grant consequential relief to the petitioners-workmen on the ground of delay and laches. Hence the petitioners have filed the present petitions challenging the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioners have filed these petitions in their individual capacity and not through their Union. 4. Hence the petitioners have filed the present petitions challenging the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioners have filed these petitions in their individual capacity and not through their Union. 4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners confined the challenge to the impugned award to the extent of those cases where the Industrial Tribunal recorded the finding that the major punishment of withholding the annual grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed without holding the enquiry, but denied the consequential relief to those workers on the ground of delay and laches. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that once, as a fact, it was found that before imposing the major punishment of stoppage of annual grade increments with cumulative effect, no enquiry was held, it was totally unjustified on the part of the Industrial Tribunal to deny the consequential relief only on the ground of delay and laches. When the learned counsel for the petitioners restricted the challenge to the impugned award and prayed for the consequential relief in those cases from the date of issuance of the demand notice, i.e., 5.3.1994, the case was adjourned on the request of learned counsel for respondent No. 2 to have instructions in the matter. 5. Today, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 states that though he is not in a position to give consent for the aforesaid order, but he submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court may consider the contention of the petitioners for grant of the consequential relief, particularly in view of the fact that when it was found as a fact that the said major punishment was imposed without holding a departmental enquiry. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Industrial Tribunal was not justified in denying the consequential relief to some of the petitioners only on the ground of delay, particularly when a clear-cut finding was recorded that the respondent authority had imposed the major punishment of stoppage of annual grade increments with cumulative effect without holding the enquiry. As per the rules and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (See M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. and Another Vs. As per the rules and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (See M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. and Another Vs. Jahan Khan, AIR 2007 SC 3153 . it is mandatory for the authority to hold an enquiry before imposing the major punishment of stoppage of annual grade increment with cumulative effect on the delinquent official. If the said order has been passed by the authority without holding an enquiry, the same can be termed to be illegal, void and without jurisdiction having been passed in gross violation of the rules. In the present case, the Industrial Tribunal has recorded a positive finding that the orders of imposing major punishment passed by the respondent-authority without holding a regular departmental enquiry are illegal, but the relief has been denied only on the ground of delay and laches. In my opinion, the denial of consequential relief to the workmen, particularly in such situation, where the respondent authority has failed to follow the mandatory provisions of the Rules, on the ground of delay and laches, is totally unfair and unjustified. Normally, the Industrial Tribunal should not deny the relief due to lapse of time, but in exceptional circumstances the departure from the said rule may be justified in the facts and circumstances of a case. In case of illegal termination, if the Industrial Tribunal records a positive finding that the order of termination was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice or the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, normally the workman is entitled for reinstatement, but in a given case on account of delay and laches, the relief of reinstatement can be modified, if the management satisfies the adjudicator that the workman is disentitled to the relief by producing necessary evidence before him. Further, the claim of a workman cannot be defeated merely because a long time has elapsed between the award and the order of punishment nor can the claim be refused even on the ground that due to delay the management might have engaged some other person. But in the present case, there is no such situation. The delay in challenging the impugned order can be covered by moulding the consequential relief to be granted to the petitioners. But in the present case, there is no such situation. The delay in challenging the impugned order can be covered by moulding the consequential relief to be granted to the petitioners. Instead of granting the consequential relief from the date of impugned order of punishment, it can be restricted to the date when the workman served the demand notice, but totally denying the consequential relief on the ground of delay, particularly when a positive finding was recorded by the Industrial Tribunal that the major punishment of stoppage of annual grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed without holding the enquiry, is totally unjustified. Consequently, these petitions are partly allowed and the impugned award passed by the Industrial Tribunal to the extent in the category of cases where the punishment of stoppage of annual grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioners without holding an enquiry, is hereby modified and respondent No. 2 is directed to grant the necessary consequential relief from the date of demand notice, within a period of six months.