Judgment:
Ashutosh Mohunta, J.
1. The workman-petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.24995 (Annexure P-14) and the Award dated 17.11.1995 passed by the Labour Court, Ludhiana, whereby the enquiry held against the petitioner has been held to be fair and proper and his termination from service has been held to be justified and he has been awarded compensation for 3.33 years' salary which he was drawing at the time of his termination and the benefit of reinstatement into service has been declined to him.
2. The petitioner joined the service of Punjab Financial Corporation (respondent No. 2) as Junior Clerk on 14.2.1974 and his place of posting was at Ludhiana. As he started taking part in Union activities and he became a member of the Executive Body, he took part in the strike of the employees. The petitioners was charge-sheeted for using abusive language against the Management. He was charge-sheeted and an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry against him. Ultimately, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 30.11.1979 (Annexure P3) passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation. His appeal against the order of dismissal was rejected by the Board of Directors and the order of rejection of the appeal was conveyed to the workman vide letter dated 3.7.1980 (Annexure P-5). The dispute was referred to the Labour Court. The petitioner made the grievance that the inquiry conducted against him was not proper as he was not allowed to engage a lawyer and the Enquiry Officer was not impartial as he was appointed for three months after his superannuation. Ultimately, the Labour Court vide order dated 22.2.1995 (Annexure P14) held that a fair and proper inquiry was held against the workman. The Labour Court also heard the parties in order to decide the dispute referred to it by the Punjab Government under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court held the termination of the petitioner as justified and in order and his prayer for reinstatement into service has been declined vide Award dated 17.11.1995 (Annexure P-15). However, the petitioner has been held entitled for compensation for 3.33 years' salary which he was drawing at the time of his termination. Now challenge has been made in the present writ petition to the order dated 22.2.1995 (Annexure P14) as well as the Award dated 17.11.1995 (Annexure P-15) passed by the Labour Court.
3. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the Punjab Financial Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') despite proper service to it. Consequently, I decide the present writ petition after hearing Mr. Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, counsel for the petitioner.
4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no personal hearing was given to the petitioner by the punishing authority before passing the order of dismissal. It has also been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the Managing Director, who was the disciplinary authority, was present in the meeting of the Board of Director when the matter with regard to dismissal of the petitioner was being discussed by the Board of Director. In this regard he has made pointed reference to the statement of Mr. Ashok Mohan Sikka, Senior Assistant (M.W.2). A copy of the statement made by this witness of the Management has been annexed as Annexure P-12. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite the prayer made by the petitioner, he has not been allowed to engage a lawyer to defend him before the Inquiry Officer. Furthermore, the counsel contended that the petitioner was not issued any show-cause notice and also that he was not supplied a copy of the inquiry report. Thus, it has been contended that the dismissal of the petitioner from service was vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice.
5. It is well settled that justice should not only be done but it should also appear to have been done. A look at the grievance made on behalf of the petitioner would show that in the present case the principles of natural justice have completely been given good-bye. The petitioner has been denied the opportunity to engage a lawyer despite the fact that the Inquiry Officer was a Law Graduate. The denial to the petitioner to engage the services of a lawyer amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner has been deprived of the opportunity to defend himself before the Disciplinary Authority. It is also the undisputed position that no personal hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the order of dismissal against him by the Punishing Authority. Not only this, it has come in the statement of Shri Ashok Mohan Sikka (MW-2) that Mrs. Shyama Mann, Managing Director, who was the Punishing Authority, was present in the meeting of the Board of Directors, when the appeal of the petitioner against his dismissal was being discussed. It has also come in his statement that as per record of dismissal brought by him before the Labour Court, the petitioner was not given any personal hearing. Even the petitioner was also not given a copy of the Inquiry Report before passing the order of dismissal by the Disciplinary Authority. All these facts go to show that the principles of natural justice were violated with impunity by the Management before dismissing him from service.
6. Consequently, I allow the writ petition and set aside the order Annexure P14 as well as the Award passed by the Labour Court (Annexure P15) and remand the case back to the Labour Court, Ludhiana, for fresh adjudication on the point as to whether the dismissal of the petitioner was justified or not. The Labour Court shall decide the case within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.