R.L. Anand, J. - (1.) THE Punjab State Electricity Board. Patiala and others have filed a writ petition under Articles 226/ of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari that the impugned award dated January 10, 2000 (Annexure P -5) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur may be quashed.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance, have gone through the record of this case. Before we refer to the central argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it will be appropriate for us to refer to the relevant parts of the award which are contained in paragraphs 23 and 24 thereof. Paragraphs 23 and 24 of the award are reproduced as under : - "23. The perusal of the order dated 11.10.1995 of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court goes to show that the enquiry was to be conducted within six months, but the Chairman called the workmen only once on 21.12.1995 and finished the same within few minutes after obtaining the writings from the workmen Ex.M -17 to M -19 that they have been heard in the enquiry thoroughly. In my view, the writings Ex.M -17 to M -19 that the workmen have been heard thoroughly in the enquiry are not sufficient to hold the valid and proper enquiry after giving due opportunity to the workmen of being heard, has been conducted. So the Chairman has simply relied upon that proceedings already conducted which has already been quashed by Hon'ble High Court and the orders passed by the Chairman dated 5.1.96 upholding the termination null and void. The Chairman was not competent to pass the termination orders of the workmen with retrospective effect on the basis of the proceedings already quashed by the Hon'ble High Court and was required to conduct fresh enquiry after giving the opportunity to the workmen and to pass appropriate orders may be dismissal/termination with immediate effect, after giving show cause notices to show cause why they should not be terminated," "24. In view of my above discussion, I am of the considered view that the order dated 5.1.1996 passed by the Chairman of the respondent upholding the termination order of the workmen with retrospective effect from 11.2.92 is absolutely illegal, null and void having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and are not binding on the rights of the workmen who have been condemned unheard. As such, this issue is decided accordingly in favour of the workmen and against the respondents,"
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the order dated September 21, 1993 (Annexure P -3) passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 3889 of 1993 and stated that there was a complete compliance on the part of the Chairman of the Board. The workmen were heard before passing the impugned order dated January 5, 1996. We are not in a position to subscribe to the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in view of the subsequent order passed by a Division Bench of this Court dated October 11, 1995 (Annexure P -4) in Civil Writ Petition No, 3653 of 1995 vide which it was ordered by a Division Bench of this Court and directions were given to the Chairman to verify the genuineness of the experience certificate of the workmen himself and they should be associated in the enquiry proceedings and such an enquiry which was supposed to be conducted by the Chairman himself must be completed within six months.;