HARNEK SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the present writ petition is to award dated 24th April, 1986 (Annexure P -7) passed by the Labour Court, Bathinda, - -vide which the reference has been answered against the Petitioner -workman holding therein that the Management has been able to establish the workman's misconduct and, therefore, the order of termination of services of the workman is justified.

(2.) COUNSEL for the Petitioner contends that the Labour Court has totally over -looked the evidence on record and has proceeded on assumptions and presumptions while coming to the conclusions which have been recorded in its impugned award. He contends that the finding that the workman was on strike and further that the said strike was illegal, is totally contrary to the evidence and, therefore, cannot be sustained. He contends that the resolution terminating the services of the workman is dated 3rd June, 1981 (Annexure P -l) wherein the ground taken for terminating his services is that he has been absenting from duty. He was issued registered notice and was also told verbally and when he came to the office of the Sabha on 2nd June, 1981 he was given an opportunity to join duty on 3rd June, 1981. Despite all this, he remained absent and as the recovery cases of the Sabha were suffering, the workman was removed from service. Counsel relying on this, contends that before the Labour Court, there was no allegation of the workman having gone on strike or that the strike was illegal as neither any reply to the statement of claim was filed by the Respondent -Management reflecting the reason of the workman going on strike, to be a ground for termination nor the oral evidence or other documentary evidence produced before the Labour Court proved that the workman had gone on strike, rather the workman in his cross -examination specifically stated that he did not participate in the strike. He, therefore, contends that the observations of the Labour Court with regard to the workman going on strike is totally beyond pleadings and evidence on record. He further contends that the allegations levelled against the workman that he has embezzled the amount of the Society, was not a ground for terminating his services as is apparent from the resolution dated 3rd June, 1981 (Annexure P -l) whereby his services were terminated. Counsel contends that even if it is accepted that the misconduct on the part of the workman could be proved by the Management in the proceedings before the Labour Court, then also the said allegations have not been proved against the workman as neither the original records nor any complaints from the members whose money is alleged to have been misappropriated/embezzled by the workman have been produced. No member has been produced to state that his money has been embezzled, nor any original registers have been produced, nor the records on which the allegations were based, have been produced. Further, the arbitration awards which were alleged to have been passed against the workman in the arbitration proceedings, were not produced. All this goes to show that the allegation with regard to the embezzlement of the money of the Society is based on no evidence at all which would justify the finding given by the Labour Court against the workman. So much so, the signatures which are alleged to be that of the Petitioner on photostat receipts, which were denied by the workman, have not been proved by producing original records or confronting the workman with such receipts. Counsel relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Makhan Singh v. Narainpura Co -operative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. and Anr. : AIR 1987 S.C. 1892, to contend that the said judgment covers on all fours the case of the workman as the facts, that allegations and the evidence which has been taken against the workman, were the same as in the above -mentioned case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the award of the Labour Court was not sustainable and was therefore, set aside and the workman has been held entitled to reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits including full back wages from the date of termination of his services till the date of reinstatement. He further relies upon a judgment of this Court in C. W.P. No. 4033 of 1985 Sardar Ali v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda and another, decided on 19th January, 2005 wherein this Court had held that if there is an allegation of absence without leave, it would constitute misconduct and it is not open to the employer to terminate the service without notice and enquiry or at any rate, without complying with the minimum principle of natural justice. It has further been held that no enquiry was held, nor any show cause notice was given before resorting to termination of services of the workman. Therefore, in the light of this judgment also, the workman deserves to be reinstated in service. He further relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Burn and Co. Limited v. Their Workmen and Ors., AIR 1959 S.C. 529, to contend that even if it is held that the workman had gone on strike and the said strike was illegal, then also in the light of the above judgment, the termination of the services of the workman cannot be upheld as neither any enquiry, nor show cause notice, nor any compensation was granted to the workman and, therefore, he was entitled to reinstatement in service. Counsel further relies upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Hardial Singh v. The Presiding Officer and another in C.W.P. No. 1005 of 1988 decided on 8th December, 2008.

(3.) ON a consideration of the whole material placed before this Court we are of the view that the decision of the management in the instant case to terminate the services of the Appellant without holding any domestic enquiry is not a bona fide one. We accordingly hold that the termination of the Appellant's services is unjustified. In the result, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and the award passed by the Labour Court and pass an award directing the Society to reinstate the Appellant in its service with effect from 30th May, 1981, the date on which the Society passed the resolution terminating the Appellant's services. The Appellant shall be treated as being in the service of the Society without any break in his service. He is entitled to all the consequential benefits. We direct the society to pay full back wages to the Appellant from the date of termination of his service till the date of reinstatement.