BHIM SINGH NAIB SUBEDAR (RETIRED) DURGA COLONY, NEAR ADULT EDUCATION OFFICE, ROHTAK Vs. CHAIRMAN, GOLDEN LION, P H & H P AREA CANTEEN, MANAGING COMMITTEE, HEAD QUARTER, P H & H P AREA SHIMLA (HP) AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 14.06.1993 passed by the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Rohtak (Annexure P-6), vide which the reference has been answered against the workman.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the services of the workman were terminated without holding an enquiry or complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Since no enquiry was held and the provisions of the Section 25-F of the Act having not been complied with, the termination of the workman is bad in law. It is further his submission that even if the reasons given by the terminating authority are taken into consideration, no evidence has been produced by the Management before the Labour Court justifying its order of termination. He contends that without any evidence on record that the workman had embezzled the amount, which is alleged to have been committed by him, the termination order cannot be sustained.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3- Management contends that the workman was the overall Incharge of the goods, which he was assigned to bring from CSD Depot, Ambala Cantt to Golden Lion Canteen at Rohtak. The workman has tried to shift his misconduct to Mr. Birender Singh, Helper, who had accompanied him. As the facts would reveal, two trucks were loaded from CSD Depot, Ambala Cantt for taking the groceries and liquor to Golden Lion Canteen at Rohtak. In one of the truck, Mr. Birender Singh, Helper, was sitting which contained the groceries and in the other truck, the petitioner- Bhim Singh was sitting, which contained liquor. It is the contention of the petitioner-workman that his truck broke down because of which, the other truck reached earlier at Rohtak and Sh. Birender Singh paid the octroi from his pocket at Rohtak. The octroi was to the amount of Rs. 167.80 paise. This receipt, according to the petitioner, was tempered with by Sh. Birender Singh and the amount, so entered, was Rs. 767.80 paise. This receipt was handed over by Sh. Birender Singh to the petitioner, who presented the same before the Accountant for settlement of the accounts as advance was given to the petitioner for on road expenses. He, on this basis, contends that since the receipt was presented by the petitioner to the Accountant for settlement of the accounts, connivance of the petitioner with Sh. Birender Singh, even if the contention as raised by the petitioner is accepted that the amount was tempered with by Sh. Birender Singh, cannot be ruled out. He further admits that no regular enquiry was held. However, he submits that a show cause notice dated 22.12.1987 (Annexure P-2) was given to the workmanpetitioner, to which he filed a reply dated 02.01.1988 (Annexure P-3). In this reply, he has admitted the factum that the receipt was presented by the workman to the Accountant for its payment after it was handed over by Sh. Birender Singh to the petitioner. He, on this basis, submits that it is apparent that the petitioner-workman was aware of the amount, which was being sought to be settled. He further contends that the procedure, which was adopted to take action against the petitioner in the present case, is as per the Golden Lion PH & HP Area Canteens Standing Orders. He further contends that as per the appointment letter dated 03.01.1987 (Annexure P- 5), the appointment of the workman was on purely temporary basis and it was for a fixed period of two years from the date of joining, which could be extended further by one year. He further submits that assuming the services of the workman were not terminated in accordance with law, still no reinstatement can be ordered in view of the fixed term appointment of the workman. On this basis, he submits that the award passed by the Labour Court deserves to be upheld and it does not call for interference by this Court.