Imposing Multiple Punishments Cumulatively On Workman For One Single Act Violates Principle Of Double Jeopardy: Punjab And Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court (“High Court”) single bench of Justice Sanjay Vashisth held that imposition of two punishments cumulatively for one single act of the Workman violates the principle of double jeopardy. The High Court noted that the Labour Court imposed two penalties on the Workman, depriving him of one increment and back wages simultaneously. The High Court partially modified the order and directed the Management not to deprive the Workmen of the increment. Brief Facts: The Petitioner (“Workman”), who worked as a Conductor for Haryana Roadways, Karnal, was charged with misconduct for failing to issue tickets to four passengers during his duty on 08.07.1980. This alleged act of omission resulted in a loss of finances to the government. Despite the Workman's service history spanning from 1972 to 1980 without any record of habitual misconduct, he was dismissed from service following an inquiry. Subsequently, an industrial dispute was raised, leading to the matter being referred to the Labour Court. Initially, the reference was decided against the Workman, but upon appeal, the decision was overturned, and the matter was remanded to the Labour Court for reevaluation. Upon reevaluation, the Labour Court observed that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the proven misconduct. Consequently, the Court set aside the dismissal order and ordered the Workman's reinstatement with continuity of service. However, the Court denied back wages from the date of removal till the date of the award, stopped one increment with cumulative effect, and treated the period between removal and reinstatement as a suspension period. Feeling aggrieved, the Workman approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court (“High Court”). The Workman argued that according to the principle of double jeopardy, only one punishment should be imposed for a single act, and the imposition of multiple penalties for a single offence violates this principle. The award stopped one increment with cumulative effect and categorized the period from his removal from service to reinstatement as a suspension period. The Workman contended that the Labour Court erred again by imposing three separate punishments instead of just reinstating him into service. The imposed penalties included the denial of back wages, stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, and treating the period from removal to the award as suspension. Observations by the High Court: The High Court referred to its decision in Tilak Raj Vs. State of Punjab [1997 (2) S.C.T. 286], where it addressed a similar case. The High Court noted the contention that the Labour Court's imposition of two punishments simultaneously, namely the stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect and the deprivation of back wages, constituted a violation of the principle of double jeopardy. However, given the passage of time since the award was issued in 1980, the High Court held that remitting the award back to the Labour Court for a fresh decision was deemed inappropriate. Therefore, invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court ruled that the Management could not deprive the worker of the increment with cumulative effect as ordered by the Labour Court. Building upon the principles established in the Tilak Raj case, the High Court directed the Management not to deprive the worker of the increment with cumulative effect as ordered by the Labour Court. Furthermore, the worker was entitled to reinstatement with the benefit of continuity of service. It held that the period of absence, from the date of termination to either the issuance of the earlier award dated 22.02.1988 or the reinstatement in service, should be treated as leave of the kind due. However, no back wages shall be granted for the period. Accordingly, the award was partly set aside. Case Title: Ghanshyam Dass vs State of Haryana and Ors.2024 LiveLaw (PH) 139 Case Number: CWP-766-2002 Advocate for the Workman: Sushil Bhardwaj Advocate for the Respondent: Praveen Chander GoyalClick Here To Read/Download Order

Imposing Multiple Punishments Cumulatively On Workman For One Single Act Violates Principle Of Double Jeopardy: Punjab And Haryana High Court

Rajesh Kumar

Tags