HARYANA ROADWAYS ENGINEERING CORPORATION THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner -Corporation wherein it is impugning the award dated 12.05.2008 (Annexure -P -5), passed by the Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court -I, Gurgaon, vide which the Labour Court while exercising its powers under Section 11 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as' "the Act") has substituted the order of termination to reinstatement in service of the respondent No. 2 -workman as a Helper but without back wages.

(2.) KAILASH Chand -respondent No. 2 -workman was appointed as a Helper by the petitioner -Corporation on 01.07.1988 and thereafter appointed as a Assistant Carpenter on 01.05.1992. A charge -sheet was issued to the respondent No. 2 -workman on 13.11.1995 in regard to a theft committed by him on the intervening night of 26.10.1997 and 27.10.1997. A regular departmental inquiry was held against the respondent No. 2 -work -man where the workman participated. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 31.01.1997, holding him guilty of the charges levelled against him. A show cause notice dated 04.02.1997 was issued to the workman to which he filed a detailed reply. On consideration of the reply submitted by the respondent No. 2 -workman, the order of termination dated 14.03.1997 was passed by the appointing authority. The workman preferred an appeal before the State Transport Commissioner, Chandigarh, but the same was rejected on 13.10.1997. Thereafter, the workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court. On the basis of the pleadings, the Labour Court was pleased to frame the following issues:

(3.) THE petitioner -Corporation has impugned the award passed by the Labour Court on the ground that the Labour Court has illegally invoked its powers under Section 11 -A of the Act in favour of the respondent No. 2 -workman, reducing the quantum of punishment awarded to him by the Management. He contends that the allegations against the respondent No. 2 -workman was that he alongwith Krishan Kumar, Carpenter, while working in the Corporation, in the intervening night of 26.10.1997 and 27.10.1997, made an attempt to steal aluminum scrap. This charge stood proved in the departmental proceedings initiated against the workman. Having lost faith on its employee and keeping in view the gravity of the mis -conduct, the services of the workman were terminated by the Management as per its wisdom. The Labour Court cannot exercise its powers under Section 11 -A of the Act on some misplaced sympathy to reinstate a workman who had been found guilty by the Management causing financial loss to the employer. Mere acquittal in the criminal case would not entitle the workman to reinstatement in service. The Labour Court had gone wrong in holding that the charge levelled against the workman was not of moral turpitude. It has further been submitted that the observations of the Labour Court is factually wrong that except for the incident in question, with regard to the attempt to steal aluminum scrap, there is nothing on record to show that prior to this there was any act of commission or omission by the workman. It has been submitted that in the written statement, before the Labour Court, to the claim petition of the workman it was specifically stated that earlier also disciplinary action was initiated against the workman on 02.11.1995 where the allegation against him was of stealing one drill machine from the workshop. The workman in those disciplinary proceedings deposited the cost of drill machine amounting to Rs. 2520.33. This shows that earlier also the workman had indulged into the act of theft and thus the observations of the Labour Court is against the records. On this basis, it is submitted that the award deserves to be set aside.