PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, U.T., CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition challenges the order of reinstatement issued by the Labour Court, Chandigarh on 09.04.1990. In the proceedings of the authorities in a domestic enquiry, the workman was guilty of charges attributed to him but the Labour Court set aside the finding.

(2.) THE case is being brought to this Court after nearly 2 decades after the dismissal from the Labour Court directing reinstatement. There had been grave allegations imputing offences of forgery, misappropriation of funds and some corrupt practices alleged to have been indulged by the workman. The workman had complained that: (i) the documents relied on by the Management and which were entrusted to the Enquiry Officer had not been made available to the workman and, therefore, he was deprived of entering a valid defence; (ii) the Enquiry Officer was biased and he was himself responsible for framing the chargesheet before the constitution of the enquiry; (iii) sufficient opportunity had not been given for examination of witnesses and he was set ex parte even when there was a request for an adjournment pointing out to the illness of his mother at Lucknow and could not participate for hearing in December 1982 when the enquiry was in progress; (iv) two management-witnesses, who had supported the workman in the evidence, were served with suspension orders and literally, all the witnesses were terrorized to tow the management line and (v) the appointment of the Managing Director was also vitiated and he did not have the competency to pass an order of removal.

(3.) WITH all the fallibilities as exposed by the Labour Court, I have no reason to find any justification for modifying the order in making any intervention. If the Labour Court was, therefore, directing a reinstatement with backwages, it was justified in doing so. I do not find any merit in the writ petition for consideration as worthy of challenge. The writ petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 10,000.