Krishan Swaroop Sharma v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Anr

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.

2.

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

3.

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.

4.

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. Petitioner-workman 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 petitioner-workman 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.

5.

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.

6.

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?

¶2Whether the enquiry was conducted fairly and according to the principles of natural justice?

¶3Whether the evidence in enquiry was not sufficient to prove the alleged misconduct of the workman?

¶4Whether punishment awarded to the workman is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct?

¶5To what relief the workman is entitled?

7.

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

10.o o Iohaveoheardolearnedocounseloforotheopetitioneroandohaveogoneo througho theo paper-booko aso wello aso impugnedo Awardo datedo 20.06.2011o (AnnexureoP-1)opassedobyotheoTribunal,owithohisoableoassistance.o

11.o o Concededly,otheoimpugnedoAwardocameo toobeopassedobyotheo Tribunalobelowoono20.06.2011o(AnnexureoP-1)oandotheoinstantowritopetitiono hasobeenofiledoinotheoyear,o2021.ooo

12.o o InotheocaseoofoEr.oDarshanoSinghoBhullaroVs.oPunjaboStateo Electricityo Board"o reportedo aso 2011(3)o S.LR.o 287;o ao Divisiono Benchoooooooooooooooooo ofo thiso Courto heldo thato theo limitationo aso applicableo ino ao Civilo Suitoooooooooooooooooo wouldo beo applicableo too theo writo petitiono also.o Ino theo caseo ofoooooooooooooooooo "Er.oDarshanoSinghoBhullaro(supra),oitowasoheldoasounder:-o "oo o -oxo-o o -oxo-o o o-x-o

2.o...TheoappellantohasoworkedoasoTraineeoEngineeroinotheo shippingoCorporationoofoIndiaofromo1982otoo1985oandotheno appliedo foro directo appointmento ono theo posto ofo Traineeo EngineeroinotheoPunjaboStateoElectricityoBoard-orespondent.o HeowasoselectedoandoappointedobyotheoBoardoasoTraineeo Engineer.oInothatoregardoappointmentoletterodatedo27.2.1986o (P.4)owouldobeorelevant.oFromotheopostoofoTraineeoEngineero heowasopromotedoasoAssistantoEngineeroandothenofurtherotoo theopostoofoExecutiveoEngineer.oTheoclaimoofotheoappellanto thatoperiodoofoserviceofromo1982otoo1985ospentoasoTraineeo EngineeroinotheoShippingoCorporationoofoIndiaoshouldobeo countedo foro theo purposeso ofo qualifyingo serviceo foro promotionohasonotobeenoacceptedoonotheogroundothatosucho claimowasonotomadeoatotheotimeoofoappointmentoino1985-86.o Eveno wheno theo appellanto waso promotedo aso Assistanto EngineerooroExecutiveoEngineeronoosuchoclaimowasomade.o MerelyobecauseooneoGianoSinghowasogivenotheobenefitoofo serviceorenderedobyohimoinotheoPWDo(B&R),oHaryanaoino pursuanceo ofo Regulationo 9(4)o ofo Punjabo Stateo Electricityo BoardoServiceoofoEngineerso(Civil)oRegulations,o1965owouldoGURPREET KAUR noto ipsoo factoo meano thato theo appellanto wouldo alsoo beo entitledotoosimilarobenefits.oIfoanyosuchobenefitowasoavailableo tootheoappellantothenotheocauseoofoactionohadoarisenoino1986o oro ato anyo timeo subsequentlyo wheno heo waso promotedo aso AssistantoEngineer.oTheoappellantoshouldohaveoapproachedo theo Courto withino ao reasonableo timeo noto exceedingo threeo yearso fromo theo dateo causeo ofo actiono hado arisen.o Ino writo proceedings,o theo periodo ofo limitationo ofo threeo yearso haso beeno reado byo ao judgemento ofo theo Constitutiono Bencho ofo Hon'bleotheoSupremeoCourtorenderedoinotheocaseoofoStateoofo Madhyao Pradesho v.o Bhaio Lalo Bhaio AIRo 1964o Supremeo Courto1006.oTheobasicoreasonoisothatoinowritoproceedingso theo periodo ofo limitationo cannoto beo moreo thano theo periodo prescribedoforofilingoaocivilosuit.oAccordingly,oweoareoofotheo viewothatotheoappealodoesonotomeritoadmissionoandoisothuso liableotoobeodismissed." o o Hon'bleo Supremeo Courto ino theo caseo ofo "Chennaio Metropolitano WateroSupplyoandoSewerageoBoardoandoothersoVs.oT.T.oMuralioBabu",o2014o A.I.R.o(S.C.W.)o1142ohasoobservedoasounder:-o "oo o o-oo xoo -oo xoo -o

16.oThus,otheodoctrineoofodelayoandolatchesoshouldonotobeo lightlyobrushedoaside.oAowritocourtoisorequiredotooweighotheo explanationoofferedoandotheoacceptabilityoofotheosame.oTheo courto shouldo bearo ino mindo thato ito iso exercisingo ano extraordinaryo ando equitableo jurisdiction.o Aso ao constitutionalocourtoitohasoaodutyotooprotectotheorightsoofotheo citizensobutosimultaneouslyoitoisotookeepoitselfoaliveotootheo primaryoprincipleothatowhenoanoaggrievedoperson,owithouto adequateoreason,oapproachesotheocourtoatohisoownoleisureooro pleasure,o theo Courto wouldo beo undero legalo obligationo too scrutiniseo whethero theo liso ato ao belatedo stageo shouldo beo entertainedooronot.oBeoitonoted,odelayocomesoinotheowayoofo equity.oInocertainocircumstancesodelayoandolachesomayonoto beofatalobutoinomostocircumstancesoinordinateodelayowouldo GURPREET KAUR onlyoinviteodisasteroforotheolitigantowhooknocksoatotheodoorso ofotheoCourt.oDelayoreflectsoinactivityoandoinactionoonotheo parto ofo ao litiganto ao litiganto whoo haso forgotteno theo basico norms,o namely,o "procrastinationo iso theo greatesto thiefo ofo time"o-oandosecond,olawodoesonotopermitooneotoosleepoando riseolikeoaophoenix.oDelayodoesobringoinohazardoandocauseso injuryotootheolis.oInotheocaseoatohand,othoughothereohasobeeno fouroyearsodelayoinoapproachingotheocourt,oyetotheowritocourto choseonototooaddressotheosame.oItoisotheodutyoofotheocourtotoo scrutiniseowhetherosuchoenormousodelayoisotoobeoignoredo withoutoanyojustification.oThatoapart,oinotheopresentocase,o sucho belatedo approacho gainso moreo significanceo aso theo respondentoemployeeobeingoabsolutelyocarelessotoohisodutyo andonurturingoaolackadaisicaloattitudeotootheoresponsibilityo hadoremainedounauthorisedlyoabsentoonotheopretextoofosomeo kindoofoillohealth.oWeorepeatoatotheocostooforepetitionothato remainingo innocuouslyo obliviouso too sucho delayo doeso noto fostero theo causeo ofo justice.o Ono theo contrary,o ito bringso ino injustice,oforoitoisolikelyotooaffectoothers.oSuchodelayomayo haveo impacto ono otherso ripenedo rightso ando mayo unnecessarilyo drago otherso intoo litigationo whicho ino acceptableorealmoofoprobability,omayohaveobeenotreatedotoo haveo attainedo finality.o Ao courto iso noto expectedo too giveo indulgenceo too sucho indolento personso whoo competeo witho KumbhakarnaooroforothatomatteroRipoVanoWinkle.oInoouro consideredo opinion,o sucho delayo doeso noto deserveo anyo indulgenceo ando ono theo saido groundo aloneo theo writo courto shouldo haveo throwno theo petitiono overboardo ato theo veryo threshold.o -oo xoo -o oxoo -o"

13.o o Aoperusaloofotheowritopetitionowouldoindicateothatotheopetitionero haso giveno theo followingo reasono foro delayo ino challengingo theo afore-saidoo Awardo:-o o o o "6.o Thatotheopetitioneroengagedoanoadvocateoofo Panchkulao toochallengeotheoaward.o Theocounselo keptoono informingotheopetitionerothatotheomatterohadonotoyetobeeno 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."

¶14The 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.

¶15It is observed that it is very easy to put blame on a lawyer alleging his/her negligence.

¶16I 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 wellosettledolawothatotheolimitationotoofileoao writopetitionoisotheosameoasoapplicableoinotheocaseoofofilingoofoaoCiviloSuitooooooooooooo i.e.othreeoyears.ooo

17.o o Inooviewoofoootheooaboveoodiscussion,oootheoooinstantooowritooopetitionoo challengingotheoAwardodatedo20.06.2011o(AnnexureoP-1),ohavingobeenofiledo ino theo year-2021o sufferso fromo grosso delayo ando lacheso ando theo sameo iso accordinglyodismissed.ooo

18.o o Allopendingoapplication/s,oifoany,oshallostandoclosed. o Novembero07,o2023o o o o o (HARSHoBUNGER)o gurpreeto o o o o o o o JUDGEo Whetherospeaking/reasoned:o o Yes/Noo Whetheroreportable:o o o Yes/No

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-CUM- LABOUR 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.