RAJASTHAN STATE CO-OP Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the Award dated 7th Nov., 2000 by which the learned Labour Court found that the order of removal from service passed against the employee non-petitioner dated 24th Dec., 1988 is illegal and improper and the employee is entitled for order of reinstatement and all the consequential benefits.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that there is allegation against the non-petitioner employee that on 17th Oct., 1987 when he was working in the petitioner's institution on the post of Store-Boy, at about 12.30 noon he was found with a bundle of copper wire and as soon as he took that bundle of copper wire in his hand, Store Officer came and caught him. A show cause notice was issued and chargesheet was also served on the non-petitioner employee and enquiry was conducted. It is found from the facts mentioned in the impugned Award that at that time Enquiry Report was not provided to the employee non-petitioner, therefore, the non-petitioner preferred a writ petition, which appears to have been allowed. The matter was taken upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Supreme Court vide order dated 22nd March, 1998 set aside the order dated 5th Feb., 1992 with a direction that a copy of Enquiry Report may be provided to the non-petitioner employee. It appears that the matter was remanded by the High Court to the labour Court on the ground that it involves certain disputed questions of fact which require determination. In these circumstances, the matter was taken up by the Labour court, Bhilwara. The Labour Court, Bhilwara, in its impugned order dated 7th Nov., 2000 held that non-petitioner was served with the chargesheet containing a charge that on 17th Oct., 1987 at about 12.30 P.M. with an intention of theft he was collecting the copper wire so that he may take it with him. It is also stated in the chargesheet that non-petitioner employee was caught red handed and he was found sitting in suspicious circumstances, therefore, he has committed grave misconduct of committing theft but the labour Court found that this is case of no evidence with respect to the alleged allegation of theft and not only this but even the employer failed to prove allegation of attempt of theft against the non-petitioner employee. It is relevant to mention here that the petitioner was working as Store Boy. The time was 12.30 P.M. i.e. in day hours, the alleged quantity of copper wire is stated to be 40 to 50 grams which according to the employee was only 10 to 15 grams. The Labour Court also took note of the improbabilities in the alleged event and also found that the document which was alleged to have been written by the non-petitioner contains no date and even after considering this evidence, the Labour Court found that the allegation has not been proved. The Tribunal fund that this is a case of no evidence at all.