PREM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the paper-book.

(2.) The workman has challenged the award of the Labour Court whereby no relief has been granted to the workman in his challenge to the order of dismissal. It is claimed by the workman that he had been falsely implicated in a criminal case on 1.7.1988, on the basis of which he was placed under suspension. Subsequently, he was reinstated and he was served with charge sheet dated 16.6.1996. Enquiry was held against him and as a result of the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the workman was ordered to be dismissed from service. The workman was discharged in a criminal case under Sections 420/409/ 471 I.P.C. 31.7.1991. It was pleaded by the Management that the petitioner had entered into a criminal conspiracy to embezzle Rs. 65,000/- belonging to the Management. After embezzling the amount, the workman alongwith his co-worker lodged a false FIR on 1.7.1988 against some unknown persons under Sections 457/300 IPC. The police, however, after investigation found that the claim put forward by the petitioner and his colleague was false. Consequently, recovery was ordered against the petitioner and other two persons involved with him. The petitioner deposited his share of the amount. The Labour Court, after appreciating the entire evidence has come to the conclusion that the enquiry held against the petitioner was fair and proper. The Labour Court also held that the petitioner had admitted in the civil court that the enquiry regarding the embezzlement was done fairly and as per rules.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the workman has been framed by the Manager. He has in fact been made a scapegoat for the higher official. He has also submitted that no fair enquiry has been conducted against the petitioner. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the recovery has only been effected from the workman whereas the liability has been affixed on his co-accused also. Learned counsel further submits that the workman had accepted to make the payment of the amount due only to save his job. He further submits that the petitioner is entitled to the same treatment as given to his co-accused. He cannot be singled out for punishment, when no action has been taken against the other employees.