The Cooperative Society Limited Bank vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Hisar and Another

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.—Feeling aggrieved against the impugned award dated 14.1.2013 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal vide Annexure P-4, petitioner-Management has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Articles 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned award. During the course of arguments, the only argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the service rules applicable to the respondent-workman, he was having the remedy of appeal against the termination order. However, learned counsel for the petitioner could not deny this material fact that the jurisdiction of the learned Labour Court was not barred. Once that is the admitted position on record, further relevant issue would be whether the petitioner-Management has violated the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (''the I.D. Act'' for short).

It is a matter of record that the respondent-workman was working on permanent basis. Charges of embezzlement were levelled against him. However, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that the enquiry was not conducted against the respondent-workman before terminating his services. Further, no notice pay or retrenchment compensation was paid to the respondent-workman.

In view of the above undisputed material aspect of the matter, duly established on record, the learned Labour Court committed no error of law while passing the impugned order recording a positive finding against the petitioner-Management. Mandatory provisions of law contained in Section 25-F of the I.D. Act stood glaringly violated. In spite of the above-said factual as well as legal aspect of the matter, learned Labour Court granted the benefit of reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits but without back wages. Further, the petitioner-Management has been granted liberty to hold an enquiry into the allegations levelled against the respondent-workman, in accordance with law. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the impugned award has not been found to be suffering from any patent illegality or perversity.

No other argument was raised.

Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition is misconceived, bereft of any merit and without any substance, thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.