RAJINDER SINGH Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATIALA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 02.07.2013 (Annexure P4) whereby the Labour Court, Patiala has answered the reference against the workman and in favour of the respondent-Company.

(2.) The case of the workman was that he was working as Operator w.e.f. 01.01.1984 till 27.02.2003 and his services were terminated on 28.02.2003 without any notice, chargesheet, enquiry or compensation. At that point of time, he was drawing Rs. 6928/- per month as salary. The respondent-Company had not complied with the principles of natural justice and the termination of service of the petitioner was illegal and unjustified. The wife of the petitioner had made complaint against Kuldeep Singh, Gurnam Singh and Rama Madan because of which, the services of the petitioner had been terminated. In defence, the respondent-Company took the plea that the workman was chargesheeted vide letter dated 19.03.2001 and as his reply was not found satisfactory, an Enquiry Officer was appointed namely the Commercial Manager. An enquiry was held which was fair and proper and thereafter, his services were terminated. Full and final payment of all his accounts including gratuity amounting to Rs. 52,714.84 was prepared and the workman had been paid Rs. 51,112.84, after deduction.

(3.) The ground for termination was that on 14.03.2001, while going out of the factory at 5 p.m., his belongings were checked by Gurnam Singh, Security Watchman and 3 new hacksaw blades, tied together with a rubber band were found in his shawl and at that point of time, even Jasmer Singh, Security Watchman was also present. The locker of the workman was also got checked by Sant Singh, Security Officer and Shasvat Sharma, Shift Officer and various items including 16 cakes of Lux soap, 1 surf pouch 200 gm, 1 computer dust cover set were found which were not required during the regular course of his work or even occasional work. Accordingly, he was chargesheeted on 19.03.2001 and he had participated in the enquiry and full opportunity was granted to defend his case. The workman had failed to live upto the trust of the Company and thus, the dismissal order was passed.