CWP No.8862 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.8862 of 2009 Date of decision:13.10.2011 Rajinder Singh ..... Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Faridabad and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.K.Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA, J. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing award dated 30.10.2006 (Annexure P-10), passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Faridabad. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet for imposing a major penalty for filing a false claim for Leave Travel Concession (in short 'LTC'). An inquiry ensued, on these allegations and the petitioner was found guilty. The appointing authority imposed a punishment of removal from service. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was eventually referred to the Labour Court, Faridabad. The Labour Court, framed a preliminary issue with respect to the validity of the domestic inquiry and vide order dated 27.03.2001, held that the domestic inquiry stands vitiated. After decision on the preliminary issue, the management CWP No.8862 of 2009 -2- adduced evidence to establish the correctness of the order of punishment. Vide the impugned award, the Labour Court has rejected the reference and held that the petitioner's service was rightly dispensed with. It is further submitted that allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and as even otherwise, the petitioner has a right to claim LTC, there is no question of misappropriation of any funds. It is further submitted that the Labour Court has failed to consider that the respondents have not led any cogent evidence to establish the allegation of misappropriation levelled against the petitioner. The witnesses produced by the respondent-management and the evidence on record, does not establish that the petitioner raised a false claim for LTC. It is further argued that the Labour Court was required, by virtue of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act'), to consider the petitioner's length of service, and his antecedents before affirming the punishment. As the Labour Court has failed to take these factors into consideration, the impugned award is illegal and void. It is also argued that similarly situated workmen, who were also accused of filing false claims for LTC and were also served with similar charge- sheets, were awarded a lesser punishment and are still in service. It is prayed that as the impugned award is illegal and void, the writ petition should be allowed. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the receipts/certificates to the tune of Rs.11,375/- produced by the CWP No.8862 of 2009 -3- petitioner in support of his claim for LTC were found to be false. The special permit was also found to be forged as was the reservation of seats. The documents did not bear the signatures of the concerned Superintendent. These facts have been proved by producing the record and by the deposition of witnesses. During the course of inquiry, the petitioner was unable to refer to the route taken by the bus while going to Rameshwaram, the names of the hotels he allegedly stayed in during this tour and also failed to disclose any material fact. It is further submitted that the lesser punishment imposed on other employees, does not confer any right upon the petitioner as each case is to be decided on its own peculiar facts. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. The service of the petitioner was terminated as he filed a false claim for LTC. The domestic inquiry found the petitioner guilty of misconduct. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court framed a preliminary issue relating to the validity of the domestic inquiry. The Labour Court has held that the domestic inquiry is vitiated. The management, therefore, sought and was granted an opportunity to lead evidence to establish the correctness of the order of punishment. The management has led into evidence, documents submitted by the petitioner, in support of his claim for LTC, produced witnesses who have deposed that the receipts/certificates were found to be false as they did not bear CWP No.8862 of 2009 -4- requisite serial numbers, the bus number mentioned in the documents is incorrect, the signatures of the concerned Superintendent are missing etc. This apart, the Labour Court has also referred to the petitioner's deposition during the inquiry where he was unable to disclose the route taken by the bus on its journey to Rameshwaram, the names of hotels in which the petitioner stayed, and that the petitioner was unaware of the tour programme. The Labour Court has held that the petitioner is guilty of submitting a false LTC claim and receiving payment in lieu of LTC. I find no reason whether in fact or in law to interfere with findings recorded by the Labour Court, affirming the petitioner's misconduct in submitting a false claim for LTC. The documents on record, duly supported by the deposition of witnesses produced by the management, are sufficient to bring home the petitioner's guilt. An argument that similarly situated employees, who had also submitted false LTC claims, have been retained in service, by imposing a lesser punishment, though attractive in its first blush, merits rejection. The mere fact that similar charge-sheets were served upon other workmen does not entitle the petitioner to pray that lesser punishment, awarded to these workmen, should have been awarded to the petitioner. The Labour Court, has considered this aspect and recorded a finding that as facts are dissimilar, the petitioner cannot invoke parity to claim lesser punishment. The Labour Court, has referred to the fact that these workmen deposited the amount of LTC, admitted their guilty and CWP No.8862 of 2009 -5- prayed for taking a lenient view. The petitioner, however, did not deposit the amount of LTC. The Labour Court has referred to the fact that during his service the petitioner was served with notices to improve his work. I find no error in the view taken by the Labour Court. As misappropriation is a serious offence, punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate to the offence. An employee found guilty of embezzlement/misappropriation loses the confidence of his employer and must, therefore, suffer the consequences of his wrong and cannot be condoned whether on the basis of principles of equality or equity. The plea that the Labour Court has not considered the petitioner's long length of service etc. is incorrect as the petitioner's antecedents in service have been considered before upholding the quantum of punishment and dismissing the reference. In view of what has been stated hereinabove as the impugned award does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 13.10.2011 [RAJIVE BHALLA] shamsher JUDGE CWP No.8862 of 2009 -6-