RANJIT SINGH - (1.) THIS writ petition came up for hearing on 23.9.2011. Finding that none was appearing on behalf of the parties, the present writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. Application has now been filed for recall of this order. The counsel for the petitioners has given out the reasons, for which he could not appear when the case was called.
(2.) FOR the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit and the reasons being personal to the counsel, the order dismissing the petition in default perhaps cannot be sustained. It is in this background that I have heard the counsel for the petitioners on merits. This is a case where respondent Gurvinder Kumar, an employee of the petitioner-Corporation as a Conductor, was dismissed from service on the basis of allegations made against him of committing a fraud with the Corporation to the tune of `30.65P. The allegations made against respondent No.1 are that while performing his duty as a Conductor, he was checked and it was noticed that he had not issued tickets to the passengers to the tune of `30.65P. For this allegation, respondent No.1 was charge-sheeted and a regular enquiry was held against him. The Enquiry Officer after recording evidence of various witnesses, exonerated the respondent- workman of the allegations made against the respondent. The Enquiry Officer has observed that the Management was unable to establish the charge against the respondent. Disagreeing with the finding of the enquiry officer, the competent authority had terminated the services of respondent-workman, against which he raised an industrial dispute. Labour Court, Patiala, on the basis of evidence and the material placed before it, allowed the reference in favour of the respondent-workman and set-aside the order of termination passed against him. The workman was held entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages. The workman- respondent was also directed to report on duty within 30 days of the publication of the award. The reference was accordingly answered. It so happened on 16.5.1991.
(3.) THERE was no stay granted by this court against the award passed by the Labour Court while admitting the writ petition. Obviously, the respondent-workman ought to have been reinstated into service.;