IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10691 of 2010 Date of Decision : November 22, 2011. The Bhiwani Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. .....Petitioner versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Pardeep Solath, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Dalal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner-Cooperative Bank is aggrieved by the award dated 6.10.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Rohtak whereby the question “whether termination of services of respondent No.2-workman was justified or not”, has been answered in favour of the workman directing his reinstatement in service with 50% back wages and substitution of punishment with stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect. The workman joined the petitioner-bank as Secretary on 1.4.1974. He was charge-sheeted for embezzlement of Rs.24890.44 and his CWP No.10691 of 2010 [2] services were terminated after an enquiry. He preferred a departmental appeal which was turned down and thereafter he raised an 'industrial dispute' which has been answered in his favour as the Labour Court while invoking its power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has reduced the punishment from termination of services to stoppage of four annual increments with cumulative effect. Before adverting to the merits of the award, it may be noticed that soon after the impugned Award dated 6.10.2009 was passed, the petitioner-management implemented the same and reinstated the respondent-workman in service before approaching this Court. Similarly, 30% back wages have also been paid to the workman. It does appear that the petitioner-management was not seriously aggrieved against respondent No.2-workman's reinstatement as it voluntarily reinstated him in service without any immediate compulsion. There was hardly any justification to wait for 6 months to challenge the award before this Court. In addition, the Labour Court has noticed discriminatory treatment in the matter of award of punishment besides disbelieving the allegation of embezzlement. The authorized representative of the management before the Labour Court failed to prove nor could show any evidence that the disputed amount was embezzled by the workman, rather he admitted that the same was given as an “advance for repair of the building”. In these circumstances, the modification of the punishment from termination of service to stoppage of four annual increments with cumulative effect appears to be sufficient, just and fair. CWP No.10691 of 2010 [3] No interference with the impugned award is called for by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. November 22, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE