KEDAR NATH JHA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Government of Bihar vide notification dated 18.2.1986 referred the Industrial Dispute between the Management of TELCO Limited, Jamshed -pur (Hereinafter referred as the

(2.) THE reference was answered by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Jam -shedpur, by award dated 18.11.1995 which is under challenge in this writ application.

(3.) THE case of the company is that the concerned workman made payment of L.T.A. against four vouchers which contained signature of recipient in Hindi totaling 2015/ -. Those vouchers signed by Shri Nair were handed over to the concerned workman. The workman reported to Shri Nair on 25.5.1982 that the above four vouchers were lost from his custody and therefore, another set of four vouchers had to be prepared and those were handed over again to the workman for needful. Payment against those second set duplicate vouchers were made on 25.5.1982 and 29.5.1982. Further case of the company is that during the course of the checking of those vouchers for the year 1981 -82 it was detected that payments has already been made against those vouchers for which the concerned workman had reported to be lost. According to the company, it was the duty of the concerned workman to pay the amount of L.T.A. Vouchers to the concerned employees after verification of their gate pass, name and ticket number etc. The concerned workman was looking after the job of L.T.A. for Auto Division payment. It was also detected that Smt. Sombari, Bhamini and Lakni had received L.T.A. payment on 26.6.1982 itself and they had put their thumb impression and vouchers in question contained signature in Hindi were referred to Hand Writing Experts, West Bengal who gave his opinion that signature on vouchers were slow, conscious, distorted. However, it was alleged that the concerned workman had falsely reported on 25.6.1982 that the said four vouchers were lost and as a matter of fact he retained those vouchers with him and managed to draw cash against those vouchers in September and October 1982 after fully knowing that payment of L.T.A. of four employees have already been made in June 1982. Therefore, the act and conduct of the concerned workman constituted misconducts of theft, fraud and dishonest in connection with the Company 'sbusiness and property.