ivil Appeal No 1080 of 1987
From the Judgment and Order dated 32
1986 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CW No 561 of 1986
Pramod Ahuja and Kailash Vasdev for the Appellant
PN Puri for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH J
The appellant Makhan Singh was working as the Secretary of Narainpura Co operative Agricul tural Service Society Limited Narainpura District Feroze pur Respondent No 1 hereinafter referred to as the Society 
He did not attend to his duties between May 11 1981 and May 29 1981 and that he had stayed away from work during that period
The Society passed a resolution on May 30 1981 terminating his services
On an industrial dispute being raised the Labour Commissioner Punjab referred the following questions to the Labour Court Bhatinda under section 10Ic of the  Whether termination of services of Makhan Singh workman is justified and in order If not to what reliefexact amount of compensation is he entitled Before the Labour Court the appellant filed his state ment of claim in which he asserted that he had not attended to his work between May 11 1981 and May 29 1981 due to his illness that he had taken leave for that period and that his services had been terminated by the management without any justification
He further alleged that he had put in six years of service in the Society and was drawing a salary 529 of Rs460 per month at the time of the termination of his services
He prayed for reinstatement in his post and also for back wages
The Society contested the claim of the appellant on various grounds
It alleged that the Society was not an industry and the was not applicable
It pleaded that the appellant had gone on a strike  without obtaining any leave and that he had also committed embezzlement of the money belonging to the Society
The Labour Court found that the appellant had committed embezzlement and that he had absented himself from duties without obtaining leave
It accordingly found that the termination of the services of the appellant was justi fied
It however held that the Society was an industry and the Labour Court had jurisdiction to pass the award
The Labour Court accordingly rejected the claim
Aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court the appellant filed a writ petition in Civil Writ Petition No 561 of 1986 on the file of the High Court of Punjab  Haryana
That petition was dismissed in limine by the High Court on February 3 1986
This appeal by special leave has been filed by the appellant against the decision of the High Court as well as against the award of the Labour Court
Admittedly no domestic enquiry was held by the manage ment before passing the order of termination of the appel lant s services
Before the Labour Court the management tried to justify the order of termination of appellant s services on the two grounds namely that the appellant had embezzled certain amounts of the Society and that he had absented himself from duty without obtaining leave
The evidence led by the management in support of the embezzle ment alleged by it is very scrappy indeed
It relied upon the evidence of Ram Sarup who was working as the Secretary of the Society that the appellant had received a sum of Rs 125 from one shareholder Bhaga Ram but he had made an entry in the account books stating that only a sum of Rs100 had been received and that the appellant had received a sum of Rs1145 and Rs150 from Sat Pal and Jagir Singh sharehold ers of the Society respectively and had made entries in the account books showing that he had received Rs920 and Rs125 respectively from them
The management produced three photo stat copies of the entries in the pass books which were marked as Exhibits M1 to M3
The originals were not pro duced
The appellant denied having misappropriated the amount of Rs25 in the first case Rs205 in the second case and Rs25 in the third case
he stated that the photostat copies were fabricated documents
The Labour Court however accepted the evidence placed before it by the management
It did not go into the question whether the photostat copies Exhibits M 1 to M 3 could be accepted as evi 530 dence in the absence of the originals
The award shows that no explanation had been given by the management for not producing the originals
We are not satisfied with the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the appellant had embezzled amounts belonging to the Society
The said finding is without any basis and is therefore liable to be set aside
The Labour Court has also accepted that the appellant had absented himself from duty without obtaining leave
It is interesting to note that the case of the Society before the Labour Court was that the appellant had gone on a strike without getting any leave
If he had gone on a strike no question of obtaining any leave would arise
The appellant gave evidence before the Labour Court stating that he was ill and therefore he was not able to attend to his duties
He also stated that he had obtained necessary leave sanc tioned before absenting himself from duties
Of course the appellant could not produce any record showing that he had given the application for leave to the management which could only be in the possession of the Society
In any event there was no reason at all for rejecting the evidence given by him
The finding on the above question is also not sus tainable on the material placed before the Court
We regret to observe that the approach of the Labour Court to the whole case is highly casual and superficial
On a consideration of the whole material placed before this Court we are of the view that the decision of the management in the instant case to terminate the services of the appellant without holding any domestic enquiry is not a bona fide one
We accordingly hold that the termination of the appellant s services is unjustified
In the result we set aside the judgment of the High Court and the award passed by the Labour Court and pass an award directing the Society to reinstate the appellant in its service with effect from May 30 1981 the date on which the Society passed the resolution terminating the appellant s services
The appellant shall be treated as being in the service of the Society without any break in his service
He is entitled to all the consequential benefits
We direct the Society to pay full back wages to the appellant from the date of termi nation of his service till the date of reinstatement
Shri PN Puff learned counsel for the Society pleaded that the appellant was working in another co operative society after his services were terminated and that the back wages payable to the appellant should be reduced by the salary drawn by him from the said society
If the appellant has worked in any other society as pleaded by the learned counsel for the Society the amount of back wages payable 531 under this award shall be reduced by the salary drawn by the appellant during the period subsequent to his termination of service from any other society
The Labour Court shall determine the actual amount payable by the Society to the appellant after hearing both the parties
The appeal is accordingly allowed
The appellant is entitled to recover costs from the Society which we quantify at Rs1000
HLC Appeal allowed


Summary:
The respondent Society terminated the service of the appellant who stayed away from work for a few days without holding a domestic enquiry
Upon an industrial dispute having been raised the question whether the termination of service was justified was referred to the Labour Court under section 101c of the 
The appel lant submitted that he had stayed away from work due to his illness and gave evidence in support thereof
The respondent pleaded that the appellant had gone on a strike  without obtaining any leave and had also committed embezzlement of money belonging to it
The Labour Court came to the conclu sion that the appellant had absented himself from duties without obtaining leave and accepting photostat copies of certain documents furnished by the respondent found that the appellant had committed the alleged embezzlement
It accord ingly held that the termination of service was justified
The appellant s writ petition against the award of the Labour Court was dismissed in limine by the High Court
Allowing the appeal by special leave and ordering rein statement of the appellant in service with full back wages HELDThe termination of the service of the appellant without holding any domestic enquiry is unjustified
530E F The finding of the Labour Court that the appellant had embezzled amounts belonging to the respondent without going into the question whether the photostat copies of documents produced could be accepted as evidence in the absence of the originals when no explanation was given by the respondent for not producing the originals is without any basis and is liable to be set aside
The finding of the Labour Court that the appellant had absented himself from duties without obtaining leave is not sustainable for the reason that the case of the respondent was that 528 the appellant had gone on a strike  and if that was so no question of obtaining any leave would arise
There was also no reason to reject the evidence given by the appellant in support of his assertion that he had not attended to his work during the relevant period due to his illness
530A C ii If the appellant has worked in any other society the amount of back wages payable shall be reduced by the salary drawn by the appellant from such society during the period subsequent to his termination of service
531A