HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL CIVIL PETITION NO. 95 (ms) OF 2003 Rajeshwar Prasad Bhatt, S/o late Sri Bhola Dutt Bhatt, R/o 444 Civil Lines, Roorkee, Haridwar. ………….Petitioner. Versus 1. Presiding Officer Labour Court, Dehradun. 2. M/s Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., Iqbalpur, Haridwar, through its Manager. ……….Respondents. Dated:21.07.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the petitioner, Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Sri Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for the respondent no. 2. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of Certiorari quashing the award – dated 13.07.2001 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court at Dehradun (Annexure No. 9 to the petition). 3. Briefly stated, according to the petitioner, he joined services of the respondent no. 2 as Legal Assistant w.e.f. 20th September, 1989 and continued the same post up to 31st October, 1997, therefore, the petitioner was terminated on 1st November, 1997. 2 4. Petitioner has submitted that M/s Maha Laxmi Sugar Company Limited/respondent no. 2 informed him regarding the outstanding dues of Rs. 51,273/- against the petitioner, which he has taken as advance to be adjusted after completion of the proposed work of the respondent company. 5. The petitioner was also served a letter, where it was shown that Rs. 54, 416 has been shown outstanding against him. 6. According to the petitioner, he has replied the said letter stating therein that due to illness of his wife a huge amount of money was spent by him on her treatment, but unfortunately she died, and therefore, the amount may be deducted from his two months’ salary and the rest of the amount shall be paid in due course. 7. However, on 27.02.1997 an advertisement was published, in which it was stated that the petitioner is not in the employment of the respondent company and the grievance of the petitioner is that no notice was served upon him and he has not been paid the wages since 1996. 8. At the instance of the petitioner, the adjudication Case No. 134 of 1999 was registered on the reference made by the State Government under the Industrial Disputes Act. Parties have filed their written statements and the pleadings were exchanged. 9. On 13.07.2001, the labour Court, passed an award against the petitioner. Present petition has been filed against the said award. 3 10. A counter affidavit has been filed in reply to the petition. In paragraph 4, 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated as under: “4. That the contents of para no. 3 of the writ petition is vehemently denied and not accepted to the answering deponent, inasmuch as, that the amount of money given to the petitioner as stated in annexure-1 to the writ petition amounting to the tune of Rs. 51,273/- was given to thue petitioner for official purpose which was embezzled by the petitioner and the company was left with no option but to state by way of notice that if the said amount is not duly returned but this never proves that the same will be deducted but this never proves that the amount of money taken by the petitioner was to be adjusted at a later stage but in fact the same was entrusted to him for official purpose. 6. That the contents of para no. 5 of the writ petition is vehemently denied and not accepted to the answering deponent, in as much as, that never the amount was extended to the petitioner to be adjusted later on but in fact the amount entrusted to the petitioner was advanced to him for the purpose of discharging his official duties but in fact the petitioner in spite of fulfilling his duties embezzled the said amount and then did not turned up for his duty with a fear in his mind that coercive action would be initiated against him by the company. 7. That the contents of para no. 6 of the writ petition is vehemently denied and not accepted to the answering deponent, in as much as, no 4 employee has a right to misappropriate or embezzle the money advanced to him by the company for his person purposes and thereafter by writing a letter so as to show his bonafide that the same may be adjusted from his salary.” 11. A Rejoinder Affidavit has been filed, where it has been stated as under: “6. That the contents of paragraph no. 4 of the counter affidavit so far as the admission of respondent no. 2 with regard to Annexure 1 is concerned need no reply, however, rest of the contents of paragraph under reply are totally wrong, misconceived, false, misleading and frivolous and hence the same are vehemently denied and in reply thereto the contents of paragraph no.3 of the writ petition are reiterated. 9. That the contents of paragraph no. 7 of the counter affidavit as stated are totally wrong, misconceived, false, misleading and uncalled for and as such the same are vehemently denied and in reply thereto the contents of paragraph no. 6 of the writ petition are reiterated. It is pertinent to mention here that though the contents of paragraph no. 6 of the writ petition have been denied but at the same time respondent no. 2 had admitted annexure 3 to the writ petition.” 12. Relevant portion of the award is quoted below: vr% mijksDr ls Li"V gS fd oknh Jfed vDVwcj 96 ls Lo;a LosPNk ls lsok R;kx djus ds bjkns ls dk;Z NksM+dj ?kj vk x;k o fQj okil ugha x;kA bldk dkj.k Hkh Li"V gS D;ksa fd mlds Åij fey dk :0 54116@& 5 cdk;k Fkk tks mlus fey ds dk;ksZ gsrq fy;k Fkk ij mldk lek;kstu ugh fd;k Fkk tSlk fd mldks Hksts x, o mldks izkfIr fn0 18@22-11-96 ds uksfVl izn’kZ MCyw&21 ls Li"V gSA bl i= dk tks fnukad jfgr mRrj izn’kZ MCyw&¼2½ mlus Hkstk tkuk dgk gS ;|fi mldk izkIr gksuk lsok;kstd i{k us Lohdkj ugha fd;k gS o mldks Hksts tkus dk Hkh dksbZ izek.k ugha gS ijUrq pwafd ;g i= vc Lo;a oknh Jfed us gh nkf[ky fd;k gS vr% og mlesa fy[kh xbZ ckrksa ds izHkko ls cp ugha ldrkA bl i= esa mlus 10]000@& iq=h ds fookg ds fy, vfxze fn;k tkuk dgk gS ij bldk dksbZ izek.k ugha fn;k gS o 35]000@& vfxze fy, x, /ku ftldh iqf"V lsok;kstd i{k }kjk nkf[ky mlds Lo;a ds fn0 2&5&96 ds uksV ls gksrh gS ds uksVksa dk QVk iqjkuk gksuk dgk gS ftldks cSad ls cnyokuk Fkk vkSj ftudks QSDl@ih0oh0,Dl0 yxkus esa O;; fd;k tkuk Fkk ij blds foijhr mlus bl i= esa dsoy 3600@& ds O;; dk gh fooj.k fn;k gS o 'ks"k ds ckjs esa ;g dgk gS o iRuh dh fpfdRlk o ckn esa 3&8&96 dks mlds fu/ku ij [kpZ gks x;k vkSj ;g izkFkZuk dh fd bl /ku dk lek;kstu mldh nks ekg dh M~;wVh dh fLFkfr o Mh0,0@Vh0,0 ls dj fy;k tk; o 'ks"k /ku tSls vkns’k fd, tk;saxs 'kuS% 'kuS% tek dj fn;k tk,xkA vr% blh ls ;g Li"V gS fd mlus mldks fey ds dk;Z ds gsrq fn, vfxze /ku dk vius futh dk;ksZ esa iz;ksx dj fy;k tks /ku dk vigj.k ;k nq:Ik;ksx gh gSA vr% bl i= dk izHkko oknh Jfed ds gh foijhr tk,xkA vr% ;g Li"V gS fd oknh Jfed us Lo;a fey ds /ku ds vigj.k ds ?kkrd izHkko ls cpus ds fy, LosPNk ls lsok R;kx fd;kA ;s lsok lekfIr dk ekeyk ugha gSA oknh Jfed ds vuqlkj lsok lekfIr dh frfFk 1&11&97 gS tks lanHkkZns’k esa vafdr gS ijUrq og ;g fl) djus esa vlQy jgk fd mlus vDVwcj 96 ls rc rd dk;Z fd;k FkkA mlus viuh tks is fLyisa izn’kZ MCyw&13 ij nkf[ky dh gSa os dsoy tuojh 96 o ebZ 96 ekgksa dh gSA blds 6 ckn dh dksbZ is fLyisa nkf[ky u fd;k tkuk mlds gh foijhr tkrk gSA vr% eS vfHkfu.kZ; nsrk gw¡ fd lanHkkZns’k fof/k fud`"V gSA nksuksa i{k viuk okn O;; ogu djsaxsaA” 13. As will appear form the aforesaid finding that the petitioner has absented himself from June, 1996. Further finding has been recorded that two letters were sent to the petitioner at the address of Roorkee on 31.10.1996 and 06.11.1996. Further finding has been recorded that Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 35,000/- were taken as advance by the petitioner. The reference, therefore, was rejected and was decided against the petitioner. I find no illegality in the order so as to interfere under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 14. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the labour Court that the petitioner has absented himself from January, 1996. 15. Writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 21.08.2006 Rathour