AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned award dated 24.11.1995 passed by the Labour Court (I), U.P. Kanpur in Adjudication Case No. 209 of 1992.
The petitioner workman was appointed on the post of Store-keeper-cum-purchaser in the establishment of respondent No. 2 in the year 1987.
It is alleged by the workman that the employers became annoyed from him on account of his actively taking part in the union activities and has terminated the services of the workman vide order dated 11.3.1991. He raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Conciliation proceedings having failed the following matter of dispute was referred to the Labour Court (I) U.P. Kanpur, which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 209 of 1992.
D;k lsok;kstdks }kjk vius lEcfU/kr Jfed Jh txnh''k pUnz xaxsys iq= Jh lhrk jke xaxsys dh lsok;s fnukad 25-9-91 ls lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk oS/kkfud gS \\ ;fn ugh] rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k fgrykHk @ {kfriwfrZ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk fdl vU; fooj.k lfgr \\
After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence of the respective parties the Labour Court held that the employer has lost confidence in the workman and awarded compensation in place of reinstatement to the extent of eight times pay and allowance to the workman as he had worked only for four years.
The counsel for the petitioner submits that the duty of the petitioner was not related to financial department; that he was to verify the goods purchased and the bill was then forwarded to finance department; that the petitioner was not capable of doing any financial irregularities as the bill remains in the custody of cash department; that there was no report of theft as such it is a mystery how the bill came into the hands of the petitioner.
He further submits that the cash book/account book showed that actual payment was not brought on record; that no person was produced from the cash department and payment to the third person was not proved; that the overwriting on bill by workman was also not proved; that after payment of bill, the cashier keeps the bill and voucher with him as such the payment can not be made without bill, domestic enquiry having been set aside by the Court and the petitioner was discharged in criminal case.
He also submits that no witness has stated that the petitioner has done the overwriting or double payment has been made at the behest of the petitioner; and that the basis of the order of the Labour Court that the services of the workman have rightly been terminated as the employer has lost confidence in the petitioner can not be sustained.
In this regard he has placed reliance upon the case of L. Michael and Another Vs. Johnson Pumps Ltd., and submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity of service and full back wages.
The counsel for the respondents submits that the employers had lost confidence in the petitioner and the Labour Court has recorded a finding of fact that it was admitted between the workman and the employers that without verification by petitioner workman no payments can be made hence, the conduct of the petitioner workman is not above board as his involvement has been found by the employers in double payment of some of the bills.
He further submits that as payment of Rs. 4133/- was got made by the petitioner two times on bill No. 99 while changing the date of bill No. 99 from 4.1.1991 to 25.1.1991, hence instead of reinstatement it was proper for the Labour Court to award compensation to the workman. The respondent employer had lost confidence in the petitioner workman and the Court below had awarded compensation in place of reinstatement while awarding eight times pay and allowance to the workman as the workman had worked for only four years.
He also submits that in the fact and circumstances of this case the award passed by the Labour Court is perfectly valid and is liable to be dismissed and no interference is required by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
In support of the aforesaid submissions, the counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the following rulings.
Kanhaiyalal Agrawal and Others Vs. The Factory Manager and others,
The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sohan Lal etc.,
ILR 2007 785 Madhya Pradesh Administration v. Tribhuban;
Vikash Adhikari and Another Vs. Judge, Labour Court and Another,
Arif Ali Khan Vs. State of Delhi and Another,
The relevant findings of the Labour Court are as under:
15- eSaus i{kksa dh IyhfMaxz] nkf[ky vfHkys[k] xqtkjs x;s lk{; vkSj rdksZ dk Hkyh&Hkkafr ijh{k.k fd;k A i{kks dks ;g Lohdkj gS fd deZpkjh LVs''kujh vkSj dqN QqVdj lkeku [kjhnus ds fy, vf/kd`r Fkk mldk fjdkMZ+ Hkh j[krk Fkk vkSj ;g ckr Hkh lk{; esa vk pqdh gS fd fcuk deZpkjh }kjk fcy lR;kfir fd;s dksbZ Hkqxrku ugh gks ldrk gSA ;g ckr lk{; esa vk;h gS fd fcy ua0 99 dk Hkqxrku fcy dh rkjh[k cnydj nks ckj fookn ls lEcfU/kr deZpkjh dh tkudkjh ls djk;k x;k A deZpkjh i{k dk lkjk rdZ ;g gS fd ds''k cqd nkf[ky ugh gq;h] vkSj fdlh xokg us Mcy Hkqxrku ds fy, Li"V :i ls deZpkjh dks nks"kh ugh Bgjk;k A Hkys gh lk{; esa ;g ckr u vkbZ gks ysfdu tc fcuk fdlh fcy dks deZpkjh }kjk lR;kfir fd;s mldk Hkqxrku lEHko ugh Fkk rks ,d gh fcy dks nks ckj Hkqxrku ds fy, izLrqr djuk /kks[kk /kM+h ekuk tk;sxk vkSj bl lEcU/k esa tks vkjksi deZpkjh ij yxk;s x;s gS og ijks{k :i ls fl) gks tkrs gS A bl ekeys esa lsok;kstdks ds fy, ;g ykteh Fkk fd os dS''k cqd nkf[ky djrs ftlls ;g Li"V gksrk fd fookn ls lEcfU/kr deZpkjh dh feyh Hkxr ls ,d gh fcy ua0 99 dk Hkqxrku nks ckj ikVhZ dks gqvk ;g vfHkys[k nkf[ky ugh gS fQj Hkh deZpkjh ds vkpj.k ij lUnsg mRiUu gks tkrk gS vkSj blfy, lsok;kstdks us c[kkZLrxh dk n.M fn;k gS] rks og dS''kcqd izLrqr u gks ikus ij vkSfpR;iw.kZ Hkys gh izrhr u gks ysfdu deZpkjh dks fu;kstu esa cuk;s j[kuk ys[k lEcU/kh fu;eksa ds foijhr izrhr gksrk gS A fookn ls lEcfU/kr deZpkjh us yxHkx 4 o"kZ rd izfroknh izfr"Bku esa lsok dh gS A vr,o eS ;g mfpr le>rk gwa fd ctk; lsok esa cgky fd;s tkus ls mls mldh lsok dk mfpr eqvkotk Hkqxrku dj fn;k tk; vkSj mudh lsok lekIr ekuh tk; A
16- QyLo:i ,okMZ gS fd fookn ls lEcfU/kr deZpkjh Jh txnh''k pUnz xaxsys iq= lhrkjke xaxsys dh lsok;s fo''okl u jg tkus ls fnukad 25-9-99 ls lekIr djus ds dkj.k deZpkjh dks mlds osru o HkRrks dk vkB xquk crkSj eqvkotk nsdj mldk lEcU/k lsok;kstdks ls lnSo ds fy, i`Fkd fd;k tkuk pkfg, A
17- gtsZ [kpsZ ds :i esa rhu lkS :0 dh /kujkf''k lsok;kstd deZpkjh i{k ds vf/kd`r izfrfuf/k dks Hkqxrku djsxs A
A perusal of the said finding shows that it was admitted to both the parties that the petitioner was authorized to purchase stationery and Misc. articles and was maintaining the record of the same. The Labour Court further held that without verification by the petitioner no payments could be made yet payment of Rs. 4133/- was made through same bill i.e. Bill No. 99 has been made twice by changing the date of Bill No. 99 from 4.1.1991 to 25.1.1991 by the involvement of the petitioner. The employer has rightly lost confidence in the workman. The petitioner has committed forgery in purchase of stationery and miscellaneous articles.
Hence, no interference is required by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in findings of facts as recorded by the Labour Court after appreciation of evidence in view of the law cited by the respondents as no illegality or perversity could be shown by the counsel for the petitioner,
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.