ISRAIL Vs. CHAUDHARY SIA SARAN SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Md. Israil, the petitioner in this case, has been discharged--in effect, dismissed--from service by the Motipur Sugar Factory Private Ltd., respondent No. 2, by the order of the Factory Manager as communicated to the petitioner in letter No. FL/295 of the 28th February, 1957 (copy of which is annexure B to the petition). By an award dated the 15th May, 1959, respondent No. 1, Mr. Chaudhury Sia Saran Sinha, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, North Bihar, at Muzaffarpur, in a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has justified the dismissal of the petitioner. He has, therefore, obtained the rule from this court against the respondents to show cause why the said award be not set aside by an appropriate writ or order. In response to the rule, cause has been shown on behalf of the factory by Mr. A. B. N. Sinha, its learned Advocate. Mr. Ranen Roy argued the case of the petitioner. In order to appreciate the points urged in support of the rule, it is necessary to state the following facts.

(2.) The petitioner was employed as a gross weighment clerk incharge by the 2nd respondent, was posted at the relevant time at the Muzaffarpur cane purchasing centre of the Factory and was working as such during the period the 17th February to 24th February, 1956. At that time it was found out that the petitioner, in criminal conspiracy with others, issued some fictitious cane purjis resulting in abnormally heavy shortage in the quantity of cane said to have been supplied. The Cane Manager forthwith suspended the petitioner by his letter dated 24th of February, 1956, (copy of which is annexure A to the petition). The letter reads:

(3.) The petitioner (through his Labour Union) and the 2nd respondent filed their written statements in the Labour Court, got exhibited certain documents and examined in all 10 witnesses, out of whom 6 were examined on behalf of the Management and 4 on behalf of the Union. The evidence adduced on behalf of the Management also included the certified copies of depositions of a number of witnesses who had been examined on their behalf in the criminal court following the principle enunciated by the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India at Calcutta in a case of another workman of this very factory to the effect: