NIRMAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In April, 1962, the appellant was appointed as a clerk in the Hoshairpur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., which is respondent 3 to this appeal. On August 10, 1976 he was transferred as 'Branch Manager' of the Dholbaha branch of the Bank. On Oct 22, 1977 one Labh Singh s/o. Harnam Singh opened an account in the Dholbaha Branch under an introduction given by one Balram Singh. Two days later, Labh Singh deposited in that account a draft in the, sum of Rs. 5,000/- issued by the Royal Bank of Canada on the Chartered Bank, New Delhi. The amount due on the draft was credited by the Bank in Labh Singh's account, on November 14. On that very day, Labh Singh withdrew a sum of Rs. 2,500/- from his account. Three days later, be withdrew the remaining amount of Rs. 2,500/-. Soon thereafter, a person claiming to be the real Labh Singh in whose favour the draft was issued by the Royal Bank of Canada, complained to the Chartered Bank, New Delhi, that the draft was stolen and that the money due thereon was fraudulently collected by the person in whose name an account was opened in the Dholbaha Branch. On Nov. 10, 1978, the Executive Committee of respondent 3-Bank resolved that an enquiry be held for fixing responsibility in the matter of the fraudulent encashment of the draft. The enquiry was held by the Chief Executive Officer, Satish Chander Dutt, who was of the rank of the Assistant Registrar in the Co-operative Department. As a result of the report submitted by him, the appellant was dismissed from service on Dec. 30, 1978.

(2.) The demand raised by the appellant in regard to his dismissal was referred by the Government of Punjab to the Conciliation Officer, who recommended that the appellant's case, should be forwarded for adjudication on the question whether big dismissal from service was justified. The Labour Commissioner of Punjab, exercising the powers of the State Government, declined to refer the dispute for adjudication on the ground that the appellant was not a workman. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, challenging the decision of the Labour Commissioner, but that writ petition was dismissed summarily. The appellant has filed this appeal by special leave, challenging the decision of the High Court and the Labour Commissioner. The State of Punjab and the Labour Commissioner are respondents 1 and 2 to this appeal.

(3.) The grievance made by Shri N. D. Garg, who appears on behalf of the appellant, that the Labour Commissioner ought to have given reasons in support of his decision, is justified. All that the Labour Commissioner has stated in the order is that the post held by the appellant did not fall "within the category of workman" This, really, is the conclusion to which the Labour Commissioner came but no reasons are given to justify that conclusion. We an of the opinion that the Labour Commissioner ought to have given reasons why he came to the conclusion that the appellant is not a "workman" within the meaning of S. 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.