IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.23004 of 2010 Date of decision : 18.4.2011 Aslam ....Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh & others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Chander Kumar Jha, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This writ petition is directed against the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh dated 13.10.2010. The petitioner faced the following serious allegations in the chargesheet which was issued to him :- “(1) On 03.12.2003, he submitted a requisition letter forging the signature of Mrs. Parminder Kaur, SB Account holder of No.21148 and fraudulently obtained a cheque book containing cheque leaves No.475681 to 476600. In order to conceal the cheque book receive by him, he had stealthily C.W.P.No.23004 of 2010 -2- removed the pages No.83 to 84 of the cheque book issued register relating to delivery of the cheque book for SB No.21148. (2) He had also stealthily removed and destroyed the original specimen signature sheet relating to SB A/C No.21148 of Mrs. Parminder Kaur from the SB specimen signature folder and pasted in its place another specimen signature sheet containing signature purportedly that on the account holder. The signature pasted by him was not verified and authenticated by any official of the branch. The signature appearing in the specimen signature sheet was found to be forged. (3) Utilizing the above cheque book fraudulently obtained by him, he had in collusion with the person known to him, got four cheques presented by two persons known to him forging the signature of the account holder and fraudulently withdrawn Rs.1,63,000/- in the SB A/C No.21148 of Mrs. Parminder Kaur. (4) He also removed the photo of Mrs. Parminder Kaur from the SB A/C opening form to facilitate passing of the above cheques. He willfully caused misconduct within the meaning of the clause 5(d) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002 between the Bank and its workmen. The above acts C.W.P.No.23004 of 2010 -3- are also prejudicial to the interest of the Bank within the meaning of gross misconduct as defined in clause 5(i) of the aforesaid settlement.” An enquiry was conducted in which his complicity was established. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were dispensed with. Upon reference having been sought by the petitioner, the same was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication, which by virtue of the impugned award dated 13.10.2010 has declined the reference so sought by the petitioner. The solitary contention raised by the petitioner before this Court is that he was not afforded proper opportunity during the course of enquiry proceedings. The enquiry has been assailed on two counts – that the petitioner being a class-IV employee was not conversant with English language in which the proceeding was conducted, and that no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was afforded to him. The Tribunal in its wisdom decided the issue regarding the fairness of the enquiry separately vide order dated 16.6.2010. In the said order, which is based on perusal of the record, it has been observed by the Tribunal that the petitioner was permitted the services of the defence representative as also the services of a translator who was well versed with the Punjabi language with which the petitioner was conversant. Each and every sentence was translated by the said translator to make the petitioner understand the proceedings. It was also recorded in the said order that opportunity of C.W.P.No.23004 of 2010 -4- cross-examining the witnesses was afforded to the defence representative and each and every witness was cross-examined. The petitioner did not assail this order and accepted the finding and, therefore, to raise the argument at this stage of the proceedings is not justifiable more so when the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any material from where it can be inferred that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the fairness of the enquiry was incorrect and not based on proper material. No other argument had been advanced regarding untenability of the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. In view of the aforesaid when the petitioner in principle accepted the finding regarding fairness of the enquiry and also for the reason that no other material has been shown to this Court from where it could be seen that the proceedings were in violation of the principles of natural justice, I am of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the award of the learned Tribunal and the writ petition is thus held to be without any merit and is dismissed. 18.4.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss