KANWAL SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kanwal Singh (hereinafter described as the petitioner) was employed as a clerk by the Haryana State Cooperative Housing Federation Limited (for short the Federation) on 3rd November, 1981. He is alleged to have been given the additional charge by the Board of Directors on 12th June, 1985 as a cashier. The petitioner had been issued a charge-sheet dated 12th June, 1989 on the ground that he got released the instalment of loan money to the society member for the construction of the house. In this process, the petitioner is stated to have violated condition No. 10 for the grant of loan. The petitioner had replied to the charge-sheet and denied all the charges levelled against him. According to him the release of the instalment was made on the resolution passed by the Federation and the recommendation had been made by the A.D.O. and D.O. The release of the amount was sanctioned by the Managing Director. The release order was passed by the Managing Director, who was the only competent person to grant and release the loan money for disbursement of the loan to the member.

(2.) The reply of the petitioner was not accepted and domestic enquiry was held. The petitioner contends that domestic enquiry had been held in utter disregard of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not given opportunity to cross-examine the witness of the management. He was not supplied the documents which were demanded by him. He was not afforded the assistance of a co-worker. The principles of natural justice were violated. The report of the enquiry held the petitioner guilty of the charges. He was served a show cause notice dated 11th September, 1990, to which a reply was filed. Without considering the reply as per the petitioner, he was removed from the service of the Federation. Aggrieved by the removal order, the petitioner served a demand notice dated 19th March, 1991. The matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court vide the impugned award concluded that during the period of suspension, the petitioner was entitled to full pay and allowances. However, as regards the removal of the petitioner from service, the answer was in the negative. It was held that the services of the petitioner were rightly terminated by the Federation. Hence the present writ petition.

(3.) Notice had been issued and the same has been contested by respondent-Federation. It is denied that the petitioner had been given the additional charge of the cashier. It was denied that there has been any violation of principles of natural justice, which may vitiate the domestic enquiry or the one conducted by the Labour Court.