JAGDISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JAGDISH Kumar conductor was employed with Haryana Roadways Sirsa Depot. He has challenged the award made by the Labour Court, Sirsa dated February 28, 1991 Annexure P-5 in this Writ Petition. According to the case of the petitioner, some incident took place on June 11, 1987 on the basis of which General Manager Haryana Roadways passed an order purporting to be of retrenchment of the petitioner. On raising an industrial dispute by the petitioner that termination of his services was illegal; the Labour Court gave the award The order of the General Manager has been partly reproduced in Sub-para (ii) of para 8 on page 4 of the Writ Petition. This indicates that the bus of the petitioner was checked under the supervision of General Manager who was assisted by three Inspectors. An opportunity to defend was also given to the petitioner at the spot but the petitioner could say nothing. The entire previous record of the petitioner showed numerous cases of embezzlement proved against him and, thus, he has held that it was a case of loss of confidence. He dispensed with the enquiry to be conducted with respect to the incident Of June 11, 1987. Taking into consideration the entire previous record, he passed an order under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act retrenching the petitioner on payment of retrenchment compensation of Rs. 1,867. 85 P. and Rs. 1,077. 60 P. as salary of one month in lieu of notice.

(2.) THE contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the basis for passing the order of retrenchment was the incident of June 11, 1987 and without holding the enquiry with respect to the aforesaid incident, the petitioner could not be punished. Even before the Labour Court, the management had an opportunity of proving the allegations regarding the incident of June 11, 1987 but the management produced no evidence. The award of the Labour Court holding the termination of petitioner as legally justified is liable to be quashed.

(3.) WE have given due consideration to this argument but in the facts of the present case, we are of the view that the same cannot be accepted. The case has to be examined in the light of the observations made by the General Manager Haryana Roadways in his order of retrenchment. No doubt if the order amounts to punishment, the enquiry contemplated under the provisions of the Act to remove the petitioner was to be conducted. However, on going through the order, we find that the basis was not the incident of June 11, 1987 although that fact was noticed as the incident had taken place. However, the basis was the entire previous record of the petitioner. Ever since he joined, there were about 27 incidents of embezzlement for which he was suitably punished i. e. he was warned 9 times, awarded censure 13 times and stoppage of increments 5 times in his total service of 3 years and 4 months, as mentioned in the award of the Labour Court itself. Because of all this previous record, the General Manager came to the conclusion that it was a case of loss of confidence and on the ground of loss of confidence, he passed the Older of retirement awarding the compensation as stated above.