SURYAMANI DASH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE award dated 23rd March, 1999 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswer in Industrial Dispute Case No. 71 of 1992 is assailed in this writ application. The petitioner was appointed, as a Peon in the Central Co -operative Bank. Limited on 5th June, 1969 and used to discharge his duties to the satisfaction of all concerned. While matter stood thus on 27.7.1997 charges were framed against him and he was called upon to explain. Thereafter, a domestic enquiry was conducted and without following the due procedures he was found guilty of misappropriation of the Bank funds and was discharged from service with effect from 14th March, 1978. He raised an industrial dispute. Conciliation having failed, the State Government in exercise of power conferred upon it under subsection (5) of Section 12 read with clause (d) of sub -section (I) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. The reference read as follows: Whether the discharge from service of Sri Suryamani Das, Ex -Peon of the Cuttack Central Co -operative Bank Limited, with effect from 14.3.1978 by the management is legal and/or justified? If not to what relief is Sri Dash entitled

(2.) AFTER receiving notice, the Management appeared and filed its written statement admitting the fact that the petitioner was duly appointed in the Bank he had continued in service for nine years. The allegation that without proper enquiry he was discharged from service was stoutly denied. It was urged that the performance of the workman was not satisfactory for which a disciplinary action was initiated against him and a charge -sheet was issued on the ground of misappropriation of fund and unauthorized absence. It was further averred that after conducting proper enquiry and giving sufficient opportunity to the workman, he was discharged from service finally with effect from 14th March, 1978. It was asserted that the domestic enquiry was conducted fairly following the principles of natural justice and equity. It was emphatically stated that the dispute was raised by the workman after lapse of eleven years and as such the same was barred by limitation and the industrial dispute case should be dismissed in limine.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Samantray, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2, at length. I have also perused the materials available on record meticulously. According to the petitioner, the domestic enquiry was not conducted properly and the Labour Court ham acted illegally and with material irregularity in not adjudicating the dispute on merit and rejecting the same on the ground of limitation. According to his after the punishment was imposed on a domestic enquiry the workman had filed an appeal before the President but as the latter adopted dilly dally tactics in disposing of the appeal, he was constrained to approach the Labour Court. Thus, there was no delay and the finding arrived at by the Labour Court is not just, proper or in consonance with law.