JEE SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 8.2.1983 (Annexure 4) recorded by Respondent No.1 in B.S.E. Case No. 15/76 whereby and whereunder the complaint case filed under Bihar Shops Establishment Act, 1954 by the petitioner was dismissed and his dismissal order recorded by the Bank authority was duly confirmed.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he was employed as clerk -cum -typist in Dhanbad branch of State Bank of India and he was also confirmed in the post of typist. It has been alleged that on 8.4.1974 in the Dhanbad branch of State Bank of India, one Badri Ram holder of Cheque No. 827709 for Rs. 6502.66 ps. drawn by the Executive Engineer, Works Division Dhanbad presented it for payment at the Govt. Counter and after due verification he was given token No. 471. However, Respondent No. 2 made an allegation that the petitioner somehow or other opened token No. 431 and in course of transmission of the cheque fraudulently altered the number of the token on the aforesaid cheque from 471 to 431 and obtained the payment on the strength of token No. 431 through some person and the petitioner has shown undue interest in transmission of the cheque from one table to another. After that when the holder of token No. 471 came then it was detected that the amount of the cheque was taken away by some other person and so the Bank Manager lodged an FIR on that very date under Section 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code before Dhanbad police. During the course of investigation in the aforesaid criminal case Baidyanath Singh, cashier, admitted before the police that it was merely a clerical mistake and subsequently the amount of the cheque had also been paid to Badri Ram and so it is not a case of fraud, and, thus, the police submitted final report stating that it is a mistake of fact. The Branch Manager also vide his memo No. 32 dated 17.4.1994 issued a warning to the petitioner for this very occurrence and advised him to be cautious in future and his conduct and performance were also being watched.

(3.) So it has been alleged that for the occurrence dated 8.4.1974, the police case was instituted in which final report was submitted and the Branch Manager for the negligence or misconduct if any has already awarded a punishment of warning, but inspite of that a departmental proceeding was Initiated and charges were levelled for interpolation of the Bank record and misappropriation of the money of the Bank and ultimately the petitioner was dismissed from services by order dated 24.3.1976. After that the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 26(2) of the Shops and Establishment Act before the Labour Court, that is, Respondent No. 1 but unfortunately Respondent No. 1 also dismissed the complaint and the dismissal order passed by the Bank was confirmed. Against that the petitioner filed a civil revision, but as if was held by this Court that in such cases civil revision is not maintainable, so this writ application had been filed for quashing the order of the Labour Court.