MANOHAR LAL Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT BATHINDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as a Salesman with the Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited (for short the Madded). He was charge sheeted it was inter-alia alleged that there was shortage of stocks of urea etc. of the value of Rs. 9,46,434.60 P. It was further alleged that 100 metric tonnes of urea valuing Rs. 2,35,000/- had been embezzled. Thus, there was embezzlement of stocks worth about Rs. 12 lacs. Similar charges had also been levelled against the Senior Branch Manager, Mr. M.P.S. Bahia. After detailed enquiry, the petitioner was ordered to be dismissed. He raised an industrial dispute. The Labour Court examined the matter and came to the conclusion that a proper enquiry had been held. It also took note of the provisions of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , and held that in view, of the gravity of charges, the punishment was not disproportionate to the proved misconduct. Thus, the petitioner's challenge to the order of dismissal from service was negatived. Aggrieved by the award, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present Writ petition.

(2.) It appears that this petition was listed for hearing before a Bench consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice (Dr.) Sarojnei Saksena on January 22, 1996. their Lordships by a detailed order of more than five pages were pleased to dismiss the petition. An application for recalling this order was filed. The order was recalled and the Writ petition was ordered to be heard afresh. It has now been listed before this Bench.

(3.) The solitary contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the action of the respondent-Markfed in dismissing the petitioner while awarding a penalty of stoppage of only six increments to Mr. Bahia is wholly arbitrary and unfair. Is it so