THE CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. JIND THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 27.09.1999 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat (Annexure P-7), vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman holding him entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the workman had embezzled the fund of Frain Kalan Cooperative Credit and Service Society and the Danoda Khurd Co-operative Credit and Service Society while working as Secretary of the Society. A charge-sheet was served on him on 09.01.1988. On the basis of an enquiry held against the workman, the Enquiry Officer gave a finding against the workman and his services were, on the basis of such findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, terminated on 03.02.1993. A dispute having been raised by the workman, the reference was made by the Appropriate Government to the Labour Court. The Labour Court while treating the issue with regard to "whether the Management conducted just and proper domestic enquiry against the workman" came to a conclusion vide order dated 14.05.1998 that the same was not in consonance with law. Thereafter, the Management and the workman were given an opportunity to produce their evidence. The Management, accordingly, submitted its evidence wherein it was contended that the services of the workman have been terminated on the basis of two awards given by the Arbitrator, which were exhibits MW-2/1 and MW-2/2. These awards were given by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies. In these arbitration awards, finding was recorded that the workman has embezzled the amount of the Society. The workman preferred an appeal before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rohtak, which was dismissed and thereafter, a Revision Petition preferred by him before the Joint Secretary to Government of Haryana Department of Cooperation faced the same fate. Not satisfied with the same, the workman preferred a Civil Suit before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind. The said Civil Suit was also dismissed vide order dated 15.10.1996 and thereafter an appeal preferred by him before the Additional District Judge (1), Jind was also dismissed vide order dated 13.05.1999. He, on this basis, submits that the awards having attained finality, the misconduct against the workman stood proved before the Labour Court and, therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court is not sustainable. He further contends that the workman having not disputed the awards being against him and also having failed in the Civil Court with regard to the awards passed against him, the Labour Court could not have delve into the legality or otherwise of the awards and should have proceeded on the basis of the evidence recorded by the parties. He contends that the Labour Court has proceeded to discard the evidence produced by the Management before the Labour Court merely on the ground that the witnesses, namely, Sh. Hans Raj Khurana, MW-1 and Sh. Ranbir Singh, Clerk, MW-2, were not personally related with the enquiry and the award proceedings and the officers, who had passed the awards, had not been produced before the Labour Court to substantiate or prove the awards. The two witnesses, which have been produced by the Management, had deposed on the basis of the awards and the official records and accordingly, have produced those official records as well, the Labour Court has proceeded to discard the evidence of the Management merely on the ground that the persons, who were directly involved in the proceedings leading to the passing of the awards against the workman, which led to holding that the amount was embezzled by the workman, had not been produced before the Labour Court to prove the charges. This, he contends, was beyond the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and the Labour Court has proceeded on a wrong assumption when the award itself stood proved and there was no denial on the part of the workman. He contends that when the awards were not disputed by the workman, the contents thereof were not required to be proved before the Labour Court. Since the termination of the services of the workman was based on the awards, wherein embezzlement was established against him and the same having been produced before the Labour Court, the charges of embezzlement, on the basis of which he was terminated, stood proved, the Labour Court misread the evidence on record. Thus, the award deserves to be set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 2-workman contends that once the enquiry proceedings held against the workman have been declared by the Labour Court to be not in consonance with law, the allegations against the workman were required to be proved before the Labour Court. He contends that Suraj Bhan, who had taken the loan, did not put his signatures, Lal Singh, who is alleged to have taken the fertilizer bags, did not appear and Balwant Singh, who had stated that the workman had not handed over the complete charge, has not been produced. He contends that as there was shortage of three bags of fertilizer, which was underweight, the workman had offered to deposit the amount of those bags, so that the charge could be handed over as complete to Balwant Singh. He submits that these were all material witnesses, who would have gone to prove the allegations of embezzlement against the workman. He contends that even the Arbitrators, who had given the awards against the workman, had not been examined in Court as witnesses to prove the alleged embezzlement by the workman and only copies of the awards have been placed on record. He, on this basis, submits that the award passed by the Labour Court is in accordance with law and, therefore, deserves to be upheld.