Vijay Kumar (deceased) through LRs vs Assistant General Manager and another

Rajesh Bindal, J.—The workman had filed the present petition challenging the award dated 21.5.2009, passed by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh (for short ''the Tribunal''), whereby the order terminating his services after due enquiry by the management, was upheld. During the pendency of the present petition, the workman having expired, his legal heirs were brought on record.

Briefly, the pleaded facts are that the workman joined the service of State Bank of India (for short, ''the Bank'') on 20.11.1989. In the year 1993, he was posted as a Messenger at the local Head Office of the Bank at Chandigarh. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the workman alleging that on 5.3.1993, at about 8.30 A.M., he had taken away two ceiling fans of the Bank in a suitcase and escaped on the scooter being driven by Surinder Singh Liftman. He did not stop even on a signal by the Security Guard. However, later on, he was apprehended and the suitcase containing the fans was recovered from him. He even suffered a confessional statement. Enquiry into the matter was held and finding the workman guilty of stealing fans from the Bank, his services were terminated. The workman raised industrial dispute. The matter was referred to the Tribunal where while going through the matter in detail again, the Tribunal upheld the termination of services of the workman. It is this award of the Tribunal, which is impugned before this court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as far as the confessional statement of the petitioner is concerned, the same was obtained under pressure. It was for the reason that the petitioner earlier had affiliation with one union, whereas later on he had shifted his alliance with other workers'' union, as a result of which the earlier union was having a grudge and he was falsely implicated, however, he was not able to refer to any material on record to show his involvement in the activities of union to the extent that on account of shifting of his affiliation to the other union, they were inimical to the workman that they thought of implicating him in a false case. He further submitted that in fact, the old fans had been purchased by him from the Bank itself in the year 1991 and receipt thereof was also produced, however, the same was ignored. The material witness, namely, Surinder Singh, with whom the petitioner had allegedly run away on the scooter, was neither arrayed as an accused nor produced as a witness. He further submitted that though the case set up by the Bank was that the petitioner had stolen the property of the Bank, but still no criminal case was got registered, which itself shows that the Bank was at a weak wicket.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Bank submitted that the fact that the workman had come to the Bank, which was not the duty hour, is fully established. It was, in fact, his own admission. It has come in the statement of the witnesses produced by the Bank that when the petitioner was running away on the scooter with Surinder Singh, on being signaled, he did not stop. The suitcase along with fans was later on recovered from his residence. He was brought to the Bank. When the suitcase was opened in his presence, fans were recovered therefrom. He made a confessional statement before the Assistant General Manager of the Bank. It is totally misconceived to contend that the petitioner was an activist of any of the workers'' union in the Bank. There is no question of false implication of an employee of the level of the petitioner in a false case. The workman never retracted from his confessional statement made before the Assistant General Manager of the Bank. It was for the first time before the Tribunal that he stated that he made confessional statement under pressure. The subsequent statement has to be ignored. The submission is that though the Bank had conducted proper enquiry wherein due opportunity was afforded to the workman to defend his case and charge against him was proved. Still the Tribunal rejecting the enquiry conducted by the Bank considered the matter afresh and found that the charge against the workman was duly proved. Once two independent authorities have gone into the factual aspect of the matter, where finding has been recorded regarding that the charge against the workman has been proved, there is no error of jurisdiction pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, which could call for interference by this court. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not afforded due opportunity during the course of enquiry or there was any procedural lapse.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the present petition. It has been recorded by the Tribunal that the workman admitted that on the fateful day, he came out from gate No. 2 on a scooter being driven by Surinder Singh at about 8.45 AM. It was not his normal duty hour to be present in the Bank at that time. Further, in the evidence led by the management in the form of statement of Partap Chand, Security Guard (MW-2), it is evident that the workman was carrying a suitcase while leaving the Bank premises and he did not stop when signaled. He reported the matter to the higher authorities. Recovery of two fans from the workman was admitted by him. Though he tried to explain the same by claiming that the same were purchased by him in the year 1991, however, there was no reason forthcoming as to why those fans were kept in a suitcase on the fateful day. The suitcase, which was recovered from the residence of the workman, was brought in the Bank along with him and opened in his presence. When the recovery was made, the workman admitted his guilt and made a confessional statement before the Assistant General Manager of the Bank. It is not denied by counsel for the workman that the workman did not make any complaint to any of the higher authority about his confessional statement having been obtained under pressure. He very well knew that the same could result in loss of his job as the confession was regarding theft of the property of the Bank. The confession was made on 5.3.1993. The workman was removed from service on 17.2.1995, but still for the first time, a plea was sought to be taken before the Tribunal in the year 2008 that the confession got recorded from the workman on 5.3.1993 was under pressure. This can be termed to be an after-thought.

Further, it is a case where there was a confession by the workman, still before terminating his services, the Bank held the enquiry. When the matter went to the Tribunal, it set aside the enquiry report vide order dated 27.3.2003 and afforded the management an opportunity to prove the charge levelled against the workman before the Tribunal. The evidence was independently led and on a consideration thereof, the Tribunal came to the finding that there was no illegality in termination of the services of the workman.

Still further, though a plea is sought to be raised by learned counsel for the workman that because of the activist of the union, he has been victimised, suffice to notice that there is no material produced on record, which could establish that the workman was so important in the functioning of a union that when he allegedly shifted his alliance to another, the earlier union became inimical to him and wanted to implicate him in a false case. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.