AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—This writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Haryana State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited (hereinafter referred to as `the Petitioner Management''), challenging the Award dated 6.12.1990 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, whereby termination of the services of Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as `the Respondent-workman'') was held to be illegal and unjustified and he was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages.
This writ petition was admitted straight-way on 12.4.1991, without issuing notice to the Respondent-workman, and operation of the impugned order was stayed till further orders, but prior to that, the Respondent-workman was allowed to join his duty without prejudice to the right of the Petitioner Management to file petition in this Court. Even after passing of the aforesaid stay order by this Court, the Petitioner Management allowed the Respondent-workman to continue with the service and finally, on 31.1.2011, on attaining the age of superannuation, the Respondent workman is stated to have retired. However, on his retirement, all the service retrial benefits of the Respondent-workman have been withheld till the finalisation of this writ petition.
In this background, I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned Award, passed by the Labour Court.
In the present case, services of the Respondent-workman were alleged to have been terminated after holding the regular enquiry, on the charge that he had embezzled 25 bags of wheat by manipulating the record. Before the Labour Court, the Respondent-workman took the stand that the Petitioner Management did not conduct fair and proper enquiry. The Petitioner Management denied the allegations. In this regard, a preliminary issue was framed, which was decided by the Labour Court vide order dated 27.3.1990 (Annexure R-2/2) and it was found as a fact that the regular enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer was not fair and proper, and consequently the said enquiry was set aside being volatile of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner Management accepted the said order and decided to produce evidence on merits to prove the charges against the Respondent-workman. The Petitioner Management examined six witnesses, including MW-2 Madan Lal. On the other hand, the Respondent-workman examined himself as WW-1.
After considering the evidence led by the parties, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the Petitioner Management has failed to prove the allegations against the Respondent-workman, therefore, termination of his services by it was not justified and legal. It has been found by the Labour Court that in order to prove the charge that the Respondent-workman had got unloaded 25 bags of wheat at the shop of his family member, the Petitioner Management relied upon the statement of MW.2 Madan Lal, but his statement was found to be unreliable and untrustworthy, because he was one of the accused along with the Respondent-workman in a criminal case. It was further found that another witness, namely Mohinder Singh, Peon of the Petitioner Management, who was allegedly deputed by the Respondent-workman to unload the bags in the shop of his relative, was not examined by the Petitioner Management, therefore, it was found that the statement of MW.2 Madan Lal was not corroborated by any other evidence.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Management assailed the finding of the Labour Court on the ground that the statement of MW.2 Madan Lal should have been accepted and relied upon. Merely because, Mohinder Singh, Peon, was not examined by the Petitioner Management, no adverse inference could have been drawn.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent-workman argued that the Respondent-workman, MW.2 Madan Lal and Mohinder Singh Peon were tried by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, for the offences under Sections 379/406 IPC with regard to the aforesaid 25 bags of wheat and in that case, only MW.2 Madan Lal has been convicted, whereas the Respondent-workman and Mohinder Singh have been acquitted by the trial court. Copy of the said judgment has also been placed on record by the Respondent-workman as R-2/1. In view of this fact, learned Counsel argued that the statement of MW.2 Madan Lal, who has been convicted for embezzlement of the aforesaid 25 bags of wheat, has rightly not been relied upon by the Labour Court, in order to prove the charge of embezzlement against the Respondent-workman.
After considering the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and going through the reasoning recorded by the Labour Court, while holding the testimony of MW.2 Madan Lal as unreliable, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned Award, passed by the Labour Court. MW.3 Harsa Ram, a witness of the Petitioner Management, has clearly stated in his cross-examination that he had enquired about the unloading of wheat bags from MW.2 Madan Lal, who told him that at the asking of Mohinder Singh Peon, he had unloaded the bags on the shop. If the said statement is taken to be correct, then charge that MW.2 Madan Lal had unloaded the wheat bags on the asking of the Respondent-workman has not been proved. The Labour Court, after taking into consideration the statement of MW.5 Satbir, further recorded a finding that the Petitioner Management has also not proved that on physical verification of the number of bags, any shortage was found. In my opinion, the Labour Court has recorded the aforesaid finding, while considering the evidence led by the Petitioner Management. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by the Labour Court and there is no merit in the instant writ petition.
Dismissed.
However, since all the retrial benefits of the Respondent workman have been withheld vide order dated 16.1.2011, passed by Managing Director of the Petitioner Management, a photo stat copy of which has been placed on record today, the Petitioner Management is directed to release all the retrial benefits of the Respondent-workman within a period of three months from today.