AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mahesh Grover, J.—This writ petition is directed against the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bathinda dated 2.8.2010.
The Petitioner had raised a dispute which was referred to the Tribunal to determine whether the termination of services of the Petitioner was justified and in order, and if not so, to what relief he was entitled. He alleged that he was working with the Respondent Society as a Secretary since 1.10.1978 on a monthly salary of Rs. 3,333/- and his services were terminated on 16.4.1996 without any notice, charge sheet, enquiry, etc. and thus the action of Respondent No. 2 was erroneous.
The Respondent No. 2 contested the claim of the Petitioner and pleaded that he had embezzled substantial amounts of the members of the Society regarding which the arbitrator has passed several awards against him which were not challenged by the Petitioner and nor has he deposited the amounts with the Society pursuant to the awards. After conducting regular enquiry and serving charge sheet upon him, his services were terminated as the charges stood proved against him. The Tribunal declined to interfere in the reference and dismissed the same which resulted in filing of the instant writ petition.
Upon perusal of the impugned award it transpires that the Petitioner was alleged to have embezzled substantial amounts from the Society regarding which a charge sheet was served upon him vide receipt Ex.M3 which was not denied by the Petitioner. He did not participate in the proceedings before the arbitrator which resulted in passing of an award against him.
Before this Court learned Counsel for the Petitioner has candidly admitted that there were multiple awards not a solitary award against the Petitioner, implying thereby that he was accused of embezzling different sums of money regarding which proceedings were initiated against him. Having not participated in the proceedings before the arbitrator, the embezzlement of amounts stood proved against him. The award of the arbitrator has not been placed on record. It is also borne out from the record that the arbitrator had sent several notices to the Petitioner to appear before him before passing of the award. The conduct of the Petitioner, therefore, is of defiance where he has not cared to bother about the legal proceedings against him. He has also not deposited the amount of the award with the Society. In this view of the matter, it is abundantly clear that the embezzlement of the amounts stood established against the Petitioner by virtue of the awards of the arbitrator and because of the total non-cooperation of the Petitioner, his story was never known and the awards stood confirmed. Besides, neither any appeal nor revision was preferred against the same. The Petitioner, thus, having invited the awards against him, which were based on the allegations of embezzlement, lost the confidence of Respondent No. 2, who was his employer. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) v. A.T. Mane 2004 (8) JT 103 has observed as under:
Coming to the question of quantum of punishment, one should bear in mind the fact that it is not the amount of money misappropriated that becomes a primary factor for awarding punishment, on the contrary, it is the loss of confidence which is the primary factor to be taken into consideration. In our opinion, when a person is found guilty of misappropriating corporation''s fund, there is nothing wrong in the corporation losing confidence or faith in such a person and awarding a punishment of dismissal.
This Court in the case of B.S. Hullikatti (supra) held in similar circumstances that the act was either dishonest or was so grossly negligent that the Respondent therein was not fit to be retained as a conductor. It also held that in such cases there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and thereby interfere with the quantum of punishment.
Similar view has also been taken by the Supreme Court in The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Sohan Lal 2004 (8) JT 113 and Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. M. Chandrasekhar Reddy and Others, .
The Respondent No. 2 was thus very well within its right to terminate the services of the Petitioner.
No ground to interfere.
Dismissed.