BARSAT PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, PANIPAT AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Barsat Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Limited has filed the instant writ petition impugning the award dated 21.3.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat wherein reference has been answered in favour of the workman-respondent No.2 and he has been held entitled to re-instatement along with continuity of service and 50% backwages from the date of demand notice.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Society would submit that respondent No.2 was initially appointed as Peon in the year 1987 and thereafter was promoted to the post of Salesman in the year 1991. However, while performing his duties, there were allegations of embezzlement of funds of the Society as also having committed other irregularities and, accordingly, a charge sheet was issued on 25.7.1998. In addition to the departmental proceedings having been initiated, an FIR was also registered against the workman. Learned counsel further asserts that in the departmental proceedings, due and fair procedure had been followed and such proceedings culminated in findings against the workman and on the basis of which, the major penalty of dismissal was imposed upon respondent No.2- workman on 16.10.1998. It has been argued that the Labour Court has erred in having overlooked such aspect of the workman having been found guilty in a regular departmental enquiry. Yet another submission raised by the learned counsel is that the reference itself was not maintainable as the employees of the Society were governed under the Primary Co-operative Credit and Service Societies Staff Service Rules, 1992 and which provided a remedy of appeal before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies against an order of dismissal or removal from service.

(3.) Per contra, Mr.SS Kharab, Advocate for respondent No.2 would submit that the workman had rendered continuous service of eleven years and a false enquiry had been foisted upon him. Learned counsel asserts that the enquiry proceedings were a sham and due opportunity had never been afforded to the workman. It is further contended that there has been a clear violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.