SIMAL CHAND JAIN Vs. C G I T

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri K.P. Agrawal, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner and Sri Avinash Tripathi for the respondents. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the award dated July 9, 1985 given by the Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur in Adjudication Case No. 169 of 1981.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for deciding the controversy raised in the writ petition are: The petitioner was working as Cashier in Central Bank of India. A shortage of Rs. 50,000/- on June 25, 1970 in cash was detected while he was officiating as Head Cashier at Central Bank of India, Meerut city. A First Information Report was lodged under Section 409, IPC against th petitioner on which criminal trial was initiated. The petitioner was convicted on September 22, 1977 and sentenced to undergo for two years rigorous imprisonment. In Criminal Appeal No. 215 of 1977 the appellant's conviction and sentence was set aside by the order dated February 18, 1978. A Civil Suit No. 270 of 1973 was also instituted by the Bank against the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 50,000/- from the petitioner who was defendant in the suit. The suit was dismissed by the II Additional Civil Judge on August 20, 1976. However, while deciding the issue No. 4 the Civil Court observed recording the finding that the defendant was negligent in dealing with the cash and the defendant was liable to make good the shortage of Rs. 50,000/-. The petitioner was placed under suspension on July 30, 1970 with effect from July 26, 1970. The petitioner was attaining the age of superannuation on September 7, 1977. The order dated September 6, 1977 was passed by the Assistant General Manager dismissing the petitioner from service with effect from September 7, 1977. The petitioner raised industrial dispute which was referred by the Central Government by referring order dated September 1, 1981. The reference reads as follows:

(3.) The Tribunal by its award dated July 9, 1985 held that the dismissal of the petitioner is not in contravention of provisions of Bipartite settlements. Tribunal observed that paragraph 19.3 or 19.6 do not lay down that the management will give a show cause notice against the proposed punishment. The Tribunal held that the disciplinary authority was within its right to rely on the finding of gross negligence as given by the Civil Court. The Tribunal relying on paragraph 19.6 of the Bipartite settlements held that the disciplinary authority was within its power to dismiss the workman without notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the award of Tribunal contended that the dismissal of the petitioner was in contravention of Bipartite settlements and the award of the Industrial Tribunal is erroneous. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied on paragraph 19.3 of the Bipartite settlements.