UPBHOKTA WHOLESALE BHANDAR LTD. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the award dtd. 4/6/2002 (Annex.13) passed by Labour Court, Bikaner, whereby the Labour Court came to the conclusion that removal of the workman dtd. 13/8/1987 was not justified and looking to his misconduct, instead of removal, the punishment was substituted by stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. It was further ordered that the workman will be entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service. Further directions were given that outstanding amount of Rs.2,739.61 alongwith 9 per cent interest would be deposited by the workman and in case the same was not deposited, the same would be recovered from his salary. The Labour Court observed that the workman would not be entitled to any salary from the date of removal to the date of the award, however, he would be entitled to salary from the date of the award.

(2.) It is, inter-alia, indicated in the petition that the workman, a salesman on the medical shop, operated by petitioner- Bhandar was working and during course of his employment, he committed various irregularities and on inspection it was found that medicines worth Rs.41,475.34 were short in the stock. The workman deposited only Rs.22,310.67 and as such embezzled Rs.19,164.67. A charge sheet was issued to him on 18/10/1985, which was duly served on him. He appeared before the Disciplinary Authority on 10/1/1986 and 6/2/1986 and recorded his statements, wherein he admitted that he has embezzled fund of the Bhandar and has committed breach of trust. Though he was provided opportunity to submit his explanation for not depositing the money, he didn't submit his explanation.

(3.) The Disciplinary Authority thereafter appointed Enquiry Officer by order dtd. 26/7/1987, who initiated process of enquiry by issuing notice, which was received by the workman, however, he didn't appear before the Enquiry Officer. Again a notice was issued, which was also received, however, again the workman didn't appear and, therefore, exparte proceedings were initiated, wherein the evidence of management was recorded and after taking into consideration the evidence of the management, the Enquiry Officer found the charges of misappropriation proved and submitted its report to the Disciplinary Authority.