DUDHNATH RAM Vs. MANAGEMENT OF TATA IRON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant is aggrieved against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.04.2008 passed in W.P. (S) No. 5477 of 2007 whereby the appellant's writ petition challenging the award dated 05.06.2007 passed by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur, has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts reveals that petitioner was caught red handed on 24.01.1995 taking bribe of Rs. 150/- when he was on duty in shift 'E'. The labour court after considering the evidence of the parties held that petitioner was in fact caught red handed taking bribe and the amount of Rs. 150/- was also recovered immediately thereafter. The punishment inflicted upon the workman was upheld by the award. The learned Single Judge also, after considering the facts of the case, dismissed the writ petition hence this L.P.A.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the appellant was assigned the duty of receiving the goods only and, therefore, there was no occasion and there could not have been any reason for taking as well' as giving bribe in the present case. It is also submitted that one another person namely B.K. Singh was also caught red handed taking the bribe but in his case, he has been reinstated in service. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that there is no sufficient evidence on record on the basis of which it can be inferred that money was taken as bribe in view of the defence of the appellant taken in the departmental proceeding and before the labour court. The defence of the appellant was that at about 11.00 am on 24.01.1995, the supplier came to the workman and asked for an amount of Rs. 150/- to attend some urgent work. The said person normally and in past also, took some money from the appellant. In the instant case, the supplier returned the said money of Rs. 150/-. The workman also admitted that he was surrounded by the workmen and other persons of the respondent company and Rs. 150/- was recovered from him. According to learned counsel for the appellant, so far as demanding and taking of the bribe is concerned, there is no evidence in view of the stand taken by the appellant.