IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5188 of 2008 Date of decision: March 28, 2008 Satnam Singh … Petitioner Versus Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. S. SARON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Ms. Deepinder Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. S. S. SARON, J. (ORAL) This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking quashing of the award dated 31.05.2005 (Annexure P-8) passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (II), Chandigarh (Labour Court, for short) (respondent No.1). The petitioner, who was working as Assistant Accountant/ Cash with the State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Haryana, Panchkula (respondent No.2), had on some occasions withdrawn cash from the account of a depositor namely, Pritam Singh. The petitioner claims that he is related to him. A chargesheet dated 13.11.2000 (Annexure P-6) was served upon the petitioner. Thereafter, an inquiry was held. The findings of the Inquiry Officer are placed on record as Annexure P-7. On the basis of Civil Writ Petition No.5188 of 2008 the inquiry that was conducted, the petitioner was removed from the service of the State Bank of India ADB, Indri (‘Bank’ – for short). The petitioner assailed the order of his removal by making a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act, for short). The Labour Court (respondent No.1), vide its impugned award dated 31-5-2005 (Annexure P-8) has dismissed the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been dismissed from service only on account of the irregularities committed by him with regard to the account of Pritam Singh. A reference has been made to the statement of Pritam Singh dated 18.10.1999 (Annexure P-1) wherein he has stated that his signatures are not there on the withdrawal of the amount of Rs.10,000/- from the Bank on 31.03.1999. His signatures were also not there regarding withdrawal of Rs.6,000/- on 16.09.1999. However, it is stated that Satnam Singh, petitioner had informed him that he was in need of money and in a hurry he had withdrawn the money. Thereafter, he had returned this money and Pritam Singh had no grievance against him. The petitioner is his relative and he be forgiven for his mistake. After considering the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner, it may be noticed that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, does not sit in appeal against the order of the Labour Court. The order of the Labour Court dated 31.05.2005 (Annexure P-8) is subject to judicial scrutiny only and the conclusions and findings reached at are not be appreciated on the basis of material and evidence on record. Even otherwise, it may be noticed that the petitioner, in his application, dated 18.10.1999 (Annexure P-3) has accepted that the account-holder Pritam Singh was his close relative and whenever he needed money, he used to 2 Civil Writ Petition No.5188 of 2008 borrow from him. Due to shortage of time, he put his signatures on 31.03.1999 and 16.09.1999 for Rs.10,000/- and Rs.6,000/- respectively. Thereafter, he had returned the money. Therefore, it is accepted by the petitioner that he had put his signatures for withdrawing cash from account of Pritam Singh, who was holding a saving bank account no.1967 in the State Bank of India, ADB Indri. The Labour Court has relied upon the confessions (Annexure P-2 to P-5) of the petitioner and has dismissed the reference made to it with regard to his removal from service w.e.f. 24.10.2005, being just and legal. The fact that the petitioner has returned the money, in the facts and circumstances, is hardly of any consequence. The petitioner is an employee of the Bank, where a higher degree of responsibility is expected from an employee, who is to deal with cash of the public. Even otherwise, it may be noticed that the Labour Court has passed the impugned award on 31.05.2005 (Annexure P-8), however, the petitioner has approached this Court after considerable delay. In view of the above, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned award. Present writ petition is accordingly dismissed. [S. S. SARON] JUDGE [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE March 28, 2008. rps 3