SURINDER SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main argument advanced by Ms.Sekhon appearing for the workman in challenge to the award dated 2nd January, 2013 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala is that the Labour Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to examine in the light of evidence on record the quantum of punishment and consider award of lesser penalty than the extreme one of dismissal from service.

(2.) The facts are that the petitioner had served the respondent Society from July, 1979 till 20th October, 1999 when his services were terminated by the management on charges of embezzlement and negligence in performance of duty. There three charges of misconduct imputed against the petitioner. Charge No.1 was that being Secretary of the Society, he had committed a fraud involving cash in hand amounting to 1,42,832.55 during the year 1992-93. In the subsequent financial year, he was accused of not depositing cash in hand. The act was alleged to be repeated in the year 1995-96 when he was accused of committing fraud in the year 1995-96 to the tune of Rs. 90,900/- by not depositing the said amount obtained from selling out the rental funds. Charge No.2 was broken into four sub charges involving lack of control and negligence towards duty in the act of one Jasbir Singh, Ex-Salesman. The third charge was that FIR No.84 dated 20th November, 1997 was registered against the petitioner in Police Station Bassi Pathana on account of repeated frauds committed by him. The workman had explained that the disputed amount was deposited as loan of his own and his wife's loan account.

(3.) Dr.Sekhon submits that if there is a fundamental error in the inquiry proceedings as to the events of 30th June, 1999 and 16th July, 1999 when the petitioner was wrongly proceeded against ex parte on account of non-appearance on 16th July, 1999. The inquiry was concluded in haste on the same day. Therefore, the proceedings cannot be called fair and proper. The defence explanation was not solicited from the workman while it could easily have been since heavens would not have fallen is short notice was given to him to come forward to show sufficient cause of absence. Taking such an irrational decision caused prejudice to the charged employee.