JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD Vs. DILIPKUMAR HIRALAL CHHATBAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order of the industrial Court, Pune, dated 28th February, 1983, made in Revision Application (ULP) No. 59 of 1982.

(2.) THE petitioner is a Co-operative Bank and the first respondent was employed by it as a clerk. He was entrusted mainly with the work of typing. Whenever any typewriter went out of order, he was required to get it repaired. He produced two bills dated 10. 9. 1979 and 7. 6. 1980 for repairs of the typewriters for Rs. 45/- and Rs. 60/ -. He also produced separate vouchers which were purportedly signed by one S. P. Joshi and one S. N. Kulkarni, respectively. On the strength of these receipts and vouchers, purported to have been signed by S. P; Joshi and S. N. Kulkarni for the repairs of the typewriters, the first respondent collected money from the petitioner. It was later on suspected that the first respondent had played a fraud on the petitioner and that money had been collected by him by production of bogus receipts and vouchers. He was served with the chargesheet dated 7. 7. 1980. He was charged with the misconduct of having forged and fabricated documents and also of dishonest in connection with the business of the employer. As a result of the enquiry, the first respondent was found guilty and dismissed from service by an order dated 22nd September, 1980. The first respondent challenged the order of dismissal by his complaint (ULP) No. 39 of 1980 before the second Labour Court, Kolhapur, alleging therein, inter alia, that the enquiry held against the first respondent was vitiated for failure to comply with the principles of natural justice and applicable rules, and that the ordef of dismissal passed against him amounted to grossly disproportionate punishment. He alleged that his dismissal amounted to unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 1 of Schedule IV of the maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

(3.) THE Labour Court, the Trial Court, recorded evidence initially on the aspect of the validity of the enquiry. Having come to the finding that the enquiry was vitiated, the Labour Court permitted the parties to lead evidence in support of the merits of the charge against the first respondent. The evidence showed that the concerned bills and the vouchers were purported to have been issued by one Best Typewriting Centre'. One Kelkar, husband of the Proprietor of best Typewriting Centre, was examined before the Labour Court. The said witness brought with him the Rubber Stamp regularly used by his wife in connection with her business and pointed out that the Rubber Stamps on the receipts and vouchers were bogus. The defence taken by the first respondent was that he had actually carried out the repairs to the typewriters and, since the service rules did not permit him to claim money for such repairs from the petitioner he had been advised by two of his superiors to prepare bogus bills to collect the money. It was further suggested that one of them had stated that he knew some parties who were prepared to give bogus bills and he would help the first respondent in getting his claim passed if he was given a commission therefor. The concerned superior officers were examined before the Labour Court and denied these allegations made by the first respondent. The first respondent also gave his evidence before the Trial Court. Though opportunity was given, the first respondent failed to produce the two persons alleged to be the signatories of the concerned two receipts and the two vouchers. After assessing all the evidence recorded before it, the Laoour Court came to the conclusion that the first respondent had tried to bring false evidence even in the Court. The labour Court also recorded a finding that the circumstances clearly showed that the first respondent had himself prepared the bills which, to his knowledge, were forged and bogus and that he had received the payments thereupon. It also concluded that the first respondent had himself prepared the false bills, impressed false Rubber Stamps of Best Typewriting Centre and played fraud upon the Management of the petitioner by forwarding the said bills and supporting vouchers as genuine documents and collecting the money due thereupon. The Labour Court, therefore, recorded a finding that the first respondent was guilty of the misconduct alleged against him viz. dishonesty in connection with the business of the establishment. The Labour court rejected the argument that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the proved misconduct and held that there was no unfair labour practice engaged in by the petitioner in issuing the order of dismissal against the first respondent in the circumstances of the case.