DIRECTOR Vs. AJAY H SORTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed by the employer i.e. the National Institute of Virology at Pune impugns the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal at Pune in Reference (IT) No.17 of 1994 and under the said award the respondent-workman has been directed to be reinstated by setting aside the order of dismissal dated 31/7/1991 as not being justified. In addition, the workman was also granted benefit of full backwages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement.

(2.) The petitioner was running a canteen by name N.I.V. Co-operative Canteen and the respondent was appointed as Canteen Clerk/Salesman for the said canteen. He had joined on 23/12/1985 on a monthly salary of Rs.1600/- and was issued a charge-sheet dated 16/7/1991 based on the Canteen Committee's enquiry report dated 11/2/1991 and without conducting any further enquiry on the charge-sheet issued, the respondent-workman was dismissed from service by way of punishment as per the order dated 31/7/1991. It was alleged that he had misappropriated canteen funds to the tune of Rs.5457.55 during the year 1989-90, Rs.1235.48 during the year 1990-91. At the same time, an amount of Rs.5961.55 was already recovered from him in February 1991. The dismissal order was challenged by raising the demand of reinstatement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the same came to be referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 17 of 1994.

(3.) As the employer did not conduct a departmental enquiry against the charges levelled against the workman, an enquiry was conducted before the Tribunal and accordingly the first party-employer examined two witnesses, namely, Shri S.M. Garbhe, the Section Officer and Shri R. Visagambi, the Administrative Officer. The workman examined himself in his defence. The Tribunal noted that both the witnesses examined by the first party were not an eye witnesses and they only stated that the workman had accepted the charges of misappropriation before the enquiry committee. In the cross-examination Mr. Garbhe admitted that he was not one of the members of the canteen committee and he had no personal knowledge about the accounts of the Canteen. He further admitted that there were no bye-laws of the Canteen, whereas a copy of the bye-laws was produced on record and this indicated that Shri Garbhe was not aware of the Canteen administration. The workman while in the witness box stated that the strength of the canteen was 10 but only 3 employees were working at the relevant time. The post of Manager was not filled in and he was required to look after the work of Manager, Clerk and his own table. He further clarified that the funds of the canteen were in the custody of the Treasurer and the Managing Committee looked after the administration of the canteen. The Treasurer and the Secretary of the Canteen Committee used to handle bank account and Mr.B.R. Patil was the Treasurer and Mr. C.D. Joshi was the Secretary of the Canteen Committee at the relevant time. They had explained the discrepancies to the Chairman of the Canteen Committee. He also pointed out that he used to hand over the sale amount to the Treasurer and the Secretary at about 4.30 p.m. on every working day. The Tribunal, therefore, held that it was the responsibility of the Secretary and the Treasurer to account for the cash of the canteen and no responsibility could be fastened on the workman. The first party did not take steps to examine either Mr.Patil or Mr.Joshi and it examined the witnesses who had no knowledge about the canteen administration and/or they were not associated with the running of the canteen.