- (1.) Challenge in the instant writ petition is to the award dated 18.01.2012 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, whereby while answering the reference in favour of the workman/respondent No.2 and holding his order of termination from service dated 21.07.1999 to be bad in law he has been held entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages.
(2.) Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner/Pepsu Road Transport Corporation would argue that the order of termination of the workman had been passed after following due procedure. In this regard, it is submitted that a regular departmental inquiry had been held in which the workman had been duly associated and it is only upon the Inquiry Officer having recorded findings against the workman that the termination order had been passed. Counsel argues that there was overwhelming evidence on record that a proper inquiry had been conducted and the Labour Court as such has erred in holding the order of termination to be illegal and directing reinstatement. Heavy reliance has been placed on the deposition of the workman before the Labour Court, wherein it had not been disputed as regards holding of an inquiry and adopting due procedure. Yet another submission raised is that even if the Labour Court had reached a conclusion that the inquiry proceedings were not proper, the prudent course of action to be followed was to have remanded the case back to the management for holding a fresh inquiry.
(3.) Per contra, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned counsel appearing for the workman/respondent No.2 would contend that the findings recorded by the Labour Court as regards the inquiry report being vitiated was on a due appreciation of evidence and would not call for any interference by the writ Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;