SHRIRAM VISHWANATH DESHPANDE Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT JABALPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 7.8.2000 passed by the C.G.I.T-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur, in I.D.A Reference No. R/78/96, answering the reference in the negative, the present writ petition was filed in this Court by the petitionerworkman.

(2.) In support of the writ petition, Mr. Rohit Deo, learned counsel for the petitioner, made the following submissions.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the writ petition. In fact, both the counsel took me through the entire evidence that was recorded by the Enquiry Officer, so also findings of the Enquiry Officer. Mr. Kumar argued that the petitioner was assigned the job of Cash Supervisor and was a responsible job for handing huge cash in the Bank. The respondent Industry being a banking company and the petitioner being a cash supervisor, this court must look to the nature of job; the discipline required and the trust reposed in a banker. The petitioner did not adhere to required norms and therefore, the usual argument to canvass the point about disproportionate punishment would have no application. He then argued that in the past also there was negligence on the part of the petitioner and therefore, he was punished by stopping the special allowance for the post of Cash Supervisor for a period of six months. It is with this point of view, this Court should proceed to appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence in the present matter. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank then argued that on the date of incident, the petitioner had left the premises of the bank after 5.30 p.m. without obtaining any permission from his Officer to leave the bank. This was all the more important because he had not handed over the entire cash to Mr. Ninawe before leaving the bank. This itself shows the suspicious conduct of the petitioner. That apart, petitioner had received 49 bundles from Shri Amle, 80 bundles from Shri Nikhade and 1 bundle from Shri Kolhatkar i.e. total 130 bundles. When he was confronted after his re-apparance in the bank at 8 p.m., he agreed that he had received 130 bundles and there was no explanation as to how he changed the entry of 130 bundles to 129 bundles in his record. Mr. Kolhatkar has deposed that he had given 1 bundle and the petitioner had scored of the said entry of receipt of one bundle from Shri Kolhatkar. The respondent bank then clearly proved that petitioner had intentionally and dishonestly corrected the record by showing one bundle less and thus he misappropriated the amount of Rs.10,000/-. According to Mr.Kumar, the letter issued by the petitioner to the effect that he was ready to deposit the amount of Rs.10,000/- by accepting the responsibility is nothing but an admission on his part of having clandestinely taken away the said amount. The Enquiry Officer as well as the Tribunal have rightly found the said letter as an admission on the part of the petitioner and since admission is the best piece of evidence, there was no need for having other evidence, though the respondent Bank had adduced the evidence of several witnesses. The learned counsel then took me through the evidence of almost all the witnesses examined by the Bank and it is not necessary to quote everything here. The standard of proof in the domestic enquiry and the evidence required is not like the one in regular court trials and therefore, this court should not substitute its view over the one taken by the Enquiry Officer as well as the Tribunal. Citing decision in the case of AIR 2008 SC 1162; Employees in relation to the Management of West Bokaro Colliery of M/s ISCO Ltd. vs. The Concerned Workman, Ram Pravesh Singh, he argued that when two views are possible, there is no need to interfere . He thus prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. He then alternatively argued that there was admittedly no pleading and evidence tendered by the respondent in order to claim back-wages and therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of J.K.Synthetics, this court should refuse to award of back-wages. Finally he prayed for dismissing the petition in entirety.