V.K. Bali, J. - (1.) The State of Punjab in the present petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks setting aside of award of Labour Court dated 5.2.1986 vide which the workman who is survived by his widow Balbir Kaur was reinstated with continuity of service and back wages. The order of dismissal was in validated by the Labour Court on the ground that the domestic enquiry that was held before passing the order of dismissal of workman from service was not proper. In arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, the Labour Court held, as a matter of fact, that the management failed to examine the enquiry officer as also that no witness was examined by the management before the enquiry officer. The enquiry file was produced before the Labour Court and that, too, by an official who had no knowledge about the matter whatsoever. It was on aforesaid count that it was further held that the papers comprising the enquiry conducted against the workman cannot be read into evidence. This fact is not disputed and all that Mr. Monga has argued with a view to set aside the order passed by the Labour Court is that it was always permissible for the Labour Court to go into the file and the documents, if perused would have certainly made out a case that the workman was delinquent and, therefore, liable to be punished proper enquiry.
(2.) I do not find any merit in the contention of the State. This Court in Jagbir Singh v. The State of Punjab and others, 1983(2) Service Law Reporter 685 held that "it is significant to note that no evidence was led to prove the signatures in this enquiry file of either the Enquiry Officer or of the petitioner for that matter any of the officials appearing therein. A specific objection was raised on behalf of the workman to the enquiry file being looked into in evidence on the ground that the person who had produced it had no personal knowledge of the file or the documents contained therein and the file had at any rate not been proved by the management. The reply of the management in this behalf was to the effect that the enquiry file was a Government document and was thus self speaking piece of evidence. This was indeed a wholly untenable stance." The judgment of this Court relied upon by Mr. Verma covers this case against the petitioner and, therefore, there is no choice but for the dismiss this petition.
(3.) Additionally this Court would like to observe that the workman died in the year 1989 and before this petition was filed he was reinstated in May, 1986. The present petition was filed on 26.3.1987. In totality of circumstances, thus, there is otherwise also no justification in negating the benefit of award to the widow of workman. Dismissed.;