DILIP KHAVNEKAR Vs. CONCILIATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present petition is to an order dated 29th October, 2014 passed by the Ministry of Labour declining to refer the dispute to adjudication following the failure of conciliation by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) recorded vide his letter dated 6 th May, 2014. The facts in brief are as follows :

(2.) The petitioner was an employee of the respondent no. 5 - bank. According to the petitioner his services were terminated illegally on 23 rd March, 2011. Although an enquiry was held, it is the petitioners contention that the enquiry was held without complying with principles of natural justice. Respondent no. 5 through its Deputy General Manager was the disciplinary authority. The allegation against the petitioner was one of financial irregularities and misappropriation. The petitioner was issued a charge sheet on 20th February, 2010 consisting of 5 basic allegations inter alia of accepting cash deposit from customers on 87 occasions and not crediting it on the same date, 28 instances of debiting accounts twice, 4 instances of debiting accounts more than the actual amount of the cheque, accepting cash from customers and not crediting it in their respective accounts and lastly availing of loan from financial institutions without permission from employee bank. All charges except the last one have been held to have been proved. An industrial dispute was raised.

(3.) The bank filed a reply inter alia relying upon letters dated 29 th July, 2009 and 1st August, 2009 whereby the petitioner admitted to some of the allegations of misappropriation. The petitioner had admittedly used bank's funds in June, 2009 and promised would be repaid in July, 2009. Copies of these communications are annexed at Exhibit -B and Exhibit-C to the affidavit in reply. Thus it was contended that the petitioner had admitted charges leveled against him. Conciliation failed and the office of the Conciliator observed that the petitioner was removed from service with superannuation benefits without disqualification for future employment. Vide order dated 22nd March 2011 he was given option of filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority. It was contended by the petitioner that his appeal was not considered. He pleaded innocence. The conciliation officer observed that an enquiry had been conducted and petitioner was given an opportunity to defend himself. The conciliation officer was of the view that efforts at conciliation had failed. This resulted in the Ministry of Labour considering the failure report and found that it was not a fit case for reference because the petitioner was removed from service on the ground of misappropriation of funds and petitioner had failed to prove his innocence. Furthermore, the petitioner had demanded and received gratuity from the respondent bank which is only paid on termination of services. The petitioner is before this Court in support of his contention that injustice has been done to him by declining to refer the dispute .