- (1.) This order will dispose of above said two writ petitions bearing No. CWP No. 581 of 2010 and CWP No. 572 of 2010 as common question of law is involved therein. The facts are taken from CWP No. 581 of 2010. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.10.2009 (Annexure P-13), which has been passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The respondent No. 5 had filed an application for payment of gratuity under the Act against the petitioner by pleading that he was employed by the petitioner and was working for it in its establishment. He was granted employment in the year 1989. His services were terminated on 24.06.2004 and after rendering more than 16 years of service, he was eligible to claim the gratuity under the Act. In the proceedings before the competent authority i.e. Assistant Labour Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'Controlling Authority'), the defence of the petitioner was struck of on 06.10.2006, whereupon he filed an application against the said order for setting aside the order on 27.10.2006. The Controlling Authority passed the following order:- Present Counsel for the parties. Arguments heard. The claim application stand allowed. At this stage the Counsel of the Respondent to play mischief with court moved an application for setting aside the order by which the defence was struck off 6.10.06. As this Application lacks merit, accordingly stand disposed off by my separate order as it lacks merit.
(2.) Vide detailed order passed separately on the same date, the claim of the respondent No. 5 was accepted and the said order is on record (Annexure P-11).
(3.) Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Controlling Authority on 17.10.2007, which was decided on 29.10.2009. The appeal was filed belatedly for the reason that the Controlling Authority dealing with the matter at that point of time, had not supplied copy of the order, which the petitioner was to impugn, because he had retained the files at his residence, despite the fact that he was transferred from the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner and despite, the fact that oral as well as written request had been made to him. The inquiry was conducted by the Labour Commissioner, Punjab, in this regard and he returned the following findings:- From the above position, it is clear that the copies of the orders sought by Shri N.R. Kaushal could not be given to him in time because these files were kept by Shri Sidhu at his residence inspite of the fact that he was transferred from the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner Amritsar to Jalandhar. Even the oral as well as written request made to him did not result in return of the files. The requisite files were only received on 09.05.2007. The delay in non-supply of the copies of the orders is therefore attributed to Shri S.S. Sidhu who did not return the files of the office of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Amritsar. He is, therefore, held squarely responsible for the delay. Shri N.R. Kaushal argued that the copies of the orders passed on 03.11.2006, 10.11.2006 and thereafter, have still not been supplied to him. Inspection of the original files reveals that the cases were decided on 27.10.2006. However, Sh. N.R. Kaushal Advocate produced copies of cause list dated 3.11.2006, 10.11.2006, 1.12.2006. These copies are certified and there is nothing on record to disbelieve their genuineness. Perusal of these certified copies of the cause list dated 3.11.2006, reveals that cases titled Gurmukh Singh v. M/s Bharat Steel Fabricators and Engineers, Jaspal Singh v. M/s Bharat Steel Fabricators and Engineers and Surta Singh v. M/s Bharat Steel Fabricators and Engineers were fixed for hearing on this dated i.e. 3.11.2006. These cases were then adjourned to 10.11.2006. Perusal of the certified copy of the cause list dated 10.11.2006 reveals that these cases made mention in this cause list. Further perusal of certified copy of the cause list dated 1.12.2006 reveals that it contained these cases. These cases were then adjourned to 15.12.2006 for arguments. It is, therefore, abundantly clear from these documents that these cases were fixed for hearing on 3.11.2006, 10.11.2006, 1.12.2006 and 15.12.2006. The case files as proved in the foregoing paragraphs were in the possession of Shri Sidhu even after his transfer from Amritsar and the other record like official copies of cause lists remained with the office. Therefore, he was in a position to temper, destroy the record available with him but was not able to change or destroy the other evidence like cause lists etc, because these were kept in the office. Sh. Sidhu who was present before me on 23.08.2007 was asked to explain the position. He sought adjournment to file detailed reply and the adjournment was given. But he did not appear on the adjourned date 14.9.2007 and also did not send any written reply. Further, there is also nothing on the record to explain as to how the final order in all the three cases were passed on back date i.e. 27.10.2006, when the cases had been fixed for 3.11.2006, 10.11.2006, 1.12.2006, 15.12.2006. Under such circumstances it is proved that proceedings of the cases continued even after 27.10.2006 and interlocutory orders were passed on 3.11.2006, 10.11.2006, 1.12.2006, 15.12.2006. Since the proceedings dated 3.11.2007, 10.11.2006, 1.12.2006, 15.12.2006 are missing in the cases files, therefore, Shri N.R. Kaushal has been deprived of his legal right from obtaining copies of these proceedings. The matter as to why the files were kept by Shri S.S. Sidhu at his residence even after his transfer and as to how the proceedings dated 3.11.2006, 10.11.2006, 1.12.2006, 15.12.2006 are missing from the files showing the orders as if these were passed on 27.10.2006 need further probe. The matter pertains to tampering and destroying of the record, is serious in nature and needs inquiry by the Administrative Department against Shri S.S. Sidhu. A copy of this order may be sent to Principal Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Department of Labour for getting the matter inquired.;