DCM SHRIRAM INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT II AND JASVEER SINGH RATHI SUKHVIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the Labour Court award dated 23.2.2000 published on 24.8.2000, Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

(2.) The facts arising out of the present petition are that the petitioner is a registered company under the Companies Act having its registered office at 18, Barahkhambha Road, Kunchanjinga Building, New Delhi and is having a sugar unit known as Daurala Sugar works, district Meeart. Respondent No. 2 was appointed on 2.12.1987 as Cane Development Supervisor. His service conditions were governed by the Standing Orders governing the conditions of employment of workmen in vacuum Pan Sugar Factories of Uttar Pradesh. The said Standing Orders were in force under the government Notification dated 3rd October, 1958. Respondent No. 2 was charge-sheeted on 9.5.1990 for fraud, dishonesty in connection with the factory's business and property of the Company. The charge against respondent was that he claimed motorcycle allowance for the month of December 1989 to March 1990 totalling Rs. 640/- when the motorcycle was out of order and the same was not used; as such the workman with intention of cheating illegally claimed the amount as motorcycle allowance. The aforesaid act of the respondent amounts to dishonesty in connection with the business and property of the Company and is misconduct under Paragraph M-l (c) of the Standing Orders relating to sugar factories. The aforesaid Clause (c) of the Standing Orders is reproduced below : "(c) Theft, fraud, or dishonesty in connection with the factory's business or property or the property belonging to workmen."

(3.) The reply was invited and an inquiry was conducted by one Sri K. Tiwari as Inquiry Officer and workman was given foil opportunity to defend himself and to cross examine the witnesses of the Management. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 14.1.1991. The Investigating Officer found the workman guilty of the charges leveled against him and has found that the workman with dishonest intention has committed dishonesty in connection with the Company business and property by illegally taking motorcycle allowance when his motorcycle was out of order. The Inquiry. Officer has held that this act of the workman amounts to misconduct.