CHANDER MOHAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 01.08.2013 (Annexure P -5) passed by the Labour Court, Patiala whereby, the reference of the petitioner -workman was answered against him and it was held that the termination of the services of the workman was proper and justified since embezzlement had been proved against him and the inquiry was conducted fairly.

(2.) A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that the workman filed his statement of claim challenging his termination dated 28.08.2001 on the ground that it had taken place without any notice, charge sheet and without fair and proper inquiry and he had been victimized.

(3.) IN the written statement filed by the management, plea taken was that action had been taken against him as per service rules due to involvement in embezzlement and misconduct while working at the Sub Depot, Bathinda and the said charges were established by the Enquiry Officer in his inquiry report. Charge sheet containing 7 serious charges including embezzlement and misconduct had been issued and served upon the workman. The workman had furnished reply, which was not satisfactory and the Enquiry Officer was appointed. The workman was given every opportunity to cross examine the witnesses produced by the Presenting Officer and he put up his defence statement and the report was given by the Enquiry Officer. A show cause notice proposing the punishment was given on 18.06.2011 alongwith report of the Enquiry Officer and the copy of the statement of witnesses was obtained by the worker from the Enquiry Officer. The workman was given a chance to appear before the management and the order dated 28.08.2001 was issued for removing him from service. The procedure has been followed as laid down by the The Punjab State Handloom Weavers Apex Cooperative Society Ltd. Service Rules , 1995. Accordingly, it was said that in the case of embezzlement, the minimum punishment for the delinquent employee was removal from service and no leniency could be shown to an official who had committed an act of embezzlement and misconduct. The Labour Court framed the following issues: -