SURAJ MAL Vs. CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, JIND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS letters patent appeal is directed against judgment dated 2.4.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge vide which the CWP No.2095 of 2000 filed by respondent No.1, was allowed.

(2.) PETITIONER -workman Suraj Mal (hereinafter mentioned as the workman) during his employment as Secretary with Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Jind -respondent No.1 (hereinafter mentioned as the Bank) was suspended on 5.9.1987 for his alleged embezzlement of the funds of Frain Kalan Cooperative Credit and Service Society and Danoda Khurd Cooperative Credit and Service Society. He was then charge -sheeted on 9.1.1988. The enquiry officer was appointed on 29.1.1988 and on enquiry, no embezzlement was detected against the workman. Thereafter, another enquiry was initiated by the Board of Administrators on 23.1.1989. In the second enquiry, report was submitted and services of the workman were terminated on 3.2.1993. An industrial dispute was raised. Reference was sent to the Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Panipat -respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as the Labour Court) by the Government. Vide Award (Annexure P -7) of 27.9.1999, it was found that the management had not conducted the enquiry as per procedure established by law and sequelly, the order of termination dated 3.2.1993 (Annexure P -3) was set aside. Aggrieved from the Award (Annexure P -7), the management filed a civil writ petition, which was allowed on 2.4.2009.

(3.) IT is now claimed by the workman that merely because in the Awards rendered by the Assistant Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Narwana (hereinafter referred to as the Arbitrator), there was an observation that some amount was recoverable from the appellant, ipso -facto is not a circumstance to dislodge the genuine claim of the workman particularly when no opportunity of hearing was provided to the workman and Awards Ex.MW -2/1 and MW -2/2 were passed in haste and in an arbitrary manner. It is then averred that in the Awards rendered by the Arbitrator against the workman only observation against the workman was regarding recovery of the amount and hence services of the workman could not have been terminated merely because recovery of the amount had not been effected from him.