Punjab & Haryana HC Partially Sets Aside Labour Court Award Imposing Multiple Punishments For Single Misconduct

The Court was hearing Writ Petition which was filed against the award given by the Labour Court that on a reference awarded three separate punishments in lieu of reinstatement.

The bench of Justice Sanjay Vashisth while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution observed, “…the impugned award is partly set aside by observing that Management would not deprive the workman of the increment with cumulative effect as ordered by Labour Court. Also, the workman would be entitled to reinstatement to his services with benefit of continuity of service. His period of absence i.e. from the date of termination from the service till the passing of the earlier award dated 22.02.1988 or reinstatement in the service, would be treated as leave of the kind due.”

Advocate Sushil Bhardwaj appeared for the Appellant and Addl. A. G. Praveen Chander Goyal appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts-

The Petitioner Ghanshyam Dass was working with Haryana Roadways. His pleaded case was that he worked with the management as a Conductor. He was charge-sheeted on the ground that while performing his duties as Conductor, he did not issue tickets to four of the passengers by not charging them, he misused the official capacity and caused a loss to the Government. On the said charges, the enquiry was conducted and an order of dismissal from service was passed.

The impugned award passed in a reference filed under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 whereby the petitioner was denied back wages and his one increment was also stopped with cumulative effect and the period from the date of removal from service to reinstatement was ordered to be treated as suspension period.

The Court mentioned its earlier decision in the case of Tilak Raj Vs. State of Punjab’ 1997 (2) and quoted, “Shri Sehgal submits that the Labour Court could not award two punishments at the same time while invoking powers under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. His client has been awarded the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect and also the back wages have been deprived to him and the period of his absence from duty was ordered to be treated as leave of the kind due., This argument of Mr. Sehgal is correct as the punishments awarded by the Labour Court would be attracted by the principles of double jeopardy.”

The Court stated that the Labour Court noticed that the workman served the Management for about 8 years and there is no material/evidence to say that he was habitual of this kind of conduct. However, it was also noticed that though he allowed four passengers to travel without a ticket, there is no allegation of receiving the fare and retaining it by himself or accepting money from the passengers on any account.

According to the Court, the Petitioner would not be entitled to any back wages for the period from the date of termination to the first award/reinstatement.

The Court partly set aside the award and modified it.

Finally, the Court disposed of the petition.

Cause Title: Ghanshyam Dass v. State of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2024:PHHC:055277)

Appearance:

Appellant: Adv. Sushil Bhardwaj

Respondent: Addl. A.G. Praveen Chander Goyal

Click here to read/download Judgment