Bhalle Ram vs The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and Others

Ranjit Singh, J.—The Petitioner was working as Secretary, Sirsa Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Village Jassania, District Sirsa. The services of the Petitioner were terminated on the basis of charge sheet served on him. The Petitioner was dismissed by the Respondent-Bank from service on 30.05.1985. The Petitioner raised the industrial disputes against the order of his dismissal. The matter was ultimately referred to Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar. On the basis of pleadings, the Labour Court framed the following issue:

Whether the management conducted a proper and fair inquiry?

The parties produced evidence before the labour Court and ultimately the labour Court came to conclude that the Petitioner-workman himself had admitted that he had handed over the charge being suspended and thereafter had deposited an amount of Rs. 12007-59 as cash in hand. This admission was taken enough proof of the allegation made against the Petitioner that he had kept amount in hand, which would amount to temporary embezzlement. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition against this order.

Perusal of the labour court award would show that the Petitioner was served a charge-sheet and an inquiry was held. As per the Respondent-management, the order of dismissal was passed after following the principle of natural justice and giving full opportunity to the Petitioner. The Petitioner, on the other hand, would plead that no fair inquiry was held and the order of dismissal was passed on the basis of finding given by the defective inquiry.

Before the Labour Court, the management had examined Sh. Raj Kumar, Inspector as MW1, who had conducted this inquiry. The Development Officer of the Bank was also examined to prove various documents. In support of his version, the Petitioner-workman appeared as witness. The Petitioner had received the charge sheet but list of witnesses was not provided to him.

The Petitioner had denied that he had misappropriated any amount. The Petitioner, however, admitted that there was arbitration proceeding in progress against him. He further admitted that he had deposited sum of ` 12007.59. This was done after some days of his suspension when he had handed over the charge. It is this admission, which ultimately was considered by the labour Court as enough and sufficient evidence to bring a charge against the Petitioner. Otherwise, the counsel may be justified in submitting that the inquiry officer had not followed the procedure as envisaged in accordance with law. As is recorded in the impugned order, the inquiry officer had questioned the Petitioner instead of requiring the department to prove the allegations against the Petitioner.

The Respondent-department did examine two witnesses as already noticed. This coupled with the admission made by the Petitioner was enough to bring home the charge levelled against the Petitioner. It, thus, cannot be said that inquiry proceedings were defective to vitiate the proceedings and the order of dismissal. I do not find any justified ground to interfere with the award passed by the labour Court.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.