MANAGEMENT OF URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD , TINKONIA BAGICHA, CUTTACK Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W. P. (C) No.16513 of 2014 has been filed by the Management of Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Cuttack and W. P. (C) No.25823 of 2014 has been filed by the Workman, namely, Dharamanada Dalei assailing the award dated 30.06.2014 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I. D. Case No. 77 of 1988, wherein learned Labour Court awarded a sum of Rs.3.00 lakh as compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages in favour of the Workman and directed the Management to pay the said amount to the Workman within a period of one month from the date of publication of the award in the official gazette. As both the writ petitions have been filed assailing the aforesaid award, those are taken up for analogous hearing for the sake of convenience in discussion and adjudication.

(2.) The facts in nut shell relevant for adjudication of the writ petitions is that the Workman, namely, Dharamananda Dalei was a sub-staff under the Management of the Bank since 1981. While continuing as such, charge-sheet alleging misconduct was served on the Workman on 07.06.1985, on the allegation that he had removed a five rupees denomination bundle amounting to Rs.500/- from the cash. The then Cashier, namely, Sri Girish Kumar Patnaik was also charged with negligence in duty for loss of Rs.4,000/- to the Management of the Bank. Upon submission of explanation by the Workman, an enquiry was held and the Workman was found guilty of the charges. The Workman in his show cause contended that he was not responsible as he had not removed the five rupees denomination bundle amounting to Rs.500/- from the cash and he was no way responsible for any loss to the Management of the Bank. However, upon being found guilty of the charges, the Workman was terminated from service with effect from 11.03.1987. The Workman not being satisfied with the manner of enquiry conducted as well as punishment imposed, moved the labour machinery and on failure of conciliation, the matter was referred to the learned Labour Court, Bhubaneswar by the appropriate Government to adjudicate the following schedule of reference.

(3.) The Workman filed his written statement of claim contending that the enquiry was not conducted by following the principle of natural justice. As he was not in good term with the Cashier, namely, Sri Girish Kumar Patnaik, he had implicated him in the alleged shortage of cash for which Sri Patnaik was solely responsible. He also raised objection to the appointment of Sri Akula Swain as the Enquiring Officer. He further contended in his statement of claim that the enquiry was not fair and proper.