THE HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Haryana State Co -operative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Petitioner Management'), challenging the Award dated 6.12.1990 (Annexure P -2), passed by the Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Rohtak, whereby termination of the services of Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Respondent -workman') was held to be illegal and unjustified and he was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages.

(2.) THIS writ petition was admitted straight -way on 12.4.1991, without issuing notice to the Respondent -workman, and operation of the impugned order was stayed till further orders, but prior to that, the Respondent -workman was allowed to join his duty without prejudice to the right of the Petitioner Management to file petition in this Court. Even after passing of the aforesaid stay order by this Court, the Petitioner Management allowed the Respondent -workman to continue with the service and finally, on 31.1.2011, on attaining the age of superannuation, the Respondent workman is stated to have retired. However, on his retirement, all the service retrial benefits of the Respondent -workman have been withheld till the finalisation of this writ petition.

(3.) IN the present case, services of the Respondent -workman were alleged to have been terminated after holding the regular enquiry, on the charge that he had embezzled 25 bags of wheat by manipulating the record. Before the Labour Court, the Respondent -workman took the stand that the Petitioner Management did not conduct fair and proper enquiry. The Petitioner Management denied the allegations. In this regard, a preliminary issue was framed, which was decided by the Labour Court vide order dated 27.3.1990 (Annexure R -2/2) and it was found as a fact that the regular enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer was not fair and proper, and consequently the said enquiry was set aside being volatile of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner Management accepted the said order and decided to produce evidence on merits to prove the charges against the Respondent -workman. The Petitioner Management examined six witnesses, including MW -2 Madan Lal. On the other hand, the Respondent -workman examined himself as WW -1.