C.W.P. No. 17997 of 2009 [ Page numbers ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 17997 of 2009 Date of Decision: Sept. 8,2011 Mahendergarh Central Coop. Bank Limited ........ Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court-II, Gurgaon and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. S.S.Dalal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.S.Nirban, Advocate for the respondent. ... RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) Challenge is to the award dated 22.6.2009 (Annexure P5) of the Labour Court whereby the reference has been answered in favour of the workman by giving him compensation of `1,50,000/- in lump-sum in lieu of reinstatement. Petitioner was appointed as Secretary in the Mahendergarh Central Co-operative Bank Limited, C.W.P. No. 17997 of 2009 [ Page numbers ] Mahendergarh on 6.2.1974. He was dismissed from service on 16.10.1993 on the charges of embezzlement of `13,498/-. A charge-sheet was issued to him on 10.10.1991. The respondent-workman did not file any reply to the charge- sheet. The employer bank decided to hold a domestic inquiry. Shri Nihal Singh, Sr. Accountant, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The workman participated in the inquiry and was found guilty of charges levelled against him. On the basis of inquiry report the Board of Directors decided to dismiss the workman vide order dated 16.10.1993. Before the Labour Court, on issue No.1 whether the domestic inquiry was in order, the issue No.1 was decided on 19.2.2001 in favour of the workman. Holding that the inquiry was not fair the respondent Bank was given chance to lead evidence to prove the charge-sheet Ex.M1 by the Labour Court. The respondent Bank examined DMW-2 Raghubir Singh and tendered documents Ex.M2/1 to Ex.M2/19 in the post enquiry issue. Mr. S.S.Dalal, counsel for the petitioner, has argued that as per the charge-sheet Ex. M1 the workman was guilty of embezzlement of `13,498 on five counts as under:- I(A) The workman 27.11.1990 had sold 35 bags of Urea fertilizer and 3 bags of DAP fertilizer worth `4460/-, but he had made entry in the cash book C.W.P. No. 17997 of 2009 [ Page numbers ] only of `4280/-, thereby making embezzlement of `180/-. I(B) The workman on 3.12.1990 had made entry in the stock register, thereby, reducing 16 bags of D.A.P and had also shown sale of 14 bags and thus the amount of two bags having the price of `360/- was embezzled by him. I-C The workman had sold fertilizer on credit to Shri Raghubir Singh son of Shri Mani Ram against receipt No.1528, but the amount shown in the cheque was not sufficient for the fertilizer, therefore, the workman had taken the remaining amount of `35/- in cash, but it was not duly credited in the cash book. Hence he had embezzled `35/-. I(D) The workman on 16.11.1990 had shown 167 bags of D.A.P fertilizer in the stock register and 35 bags were sold on 19.11.1990, thereby, having 132 bags in stock, but he had shown the balance in the record to be 122 bags. Thus, the amount of 10 bags having the price of `1800/- were embezzled. However, later on he had shown having sold 6 bags on 8.5.1991 and 4 bags on 6.8.1991. Even though there was no bas on 17.4.1991. C.W.P. No. 17997 of 2009 [ Page numbers ] I(E) During the visit made by DRCS, Bhiwani on 2.1.1991, 99 bags of Urea worth `11088/- were found short in the stock register maintained by the workman, But this was deposited by the workman later on. The workman had not led any evidence before the Labour Court. All these allegations were proved as per the documents Ex.M2/1 to Ex.M2/19. The workman was holding a responsible job of Secretary and once the Bank had lost confidence on account of embezzlement and irregularities in dealing with accounts the Labour Court was not justified to come to a conclusion that the services of the workman were wrongly and illegally terminated. Mr. D.S.Nirban, learned counsel for the respondent-workman, on the other hand has referred to the finding given by the Labour Court that once the primary issue was decided on 19.2.2001 that the inquiry was not fair the Management has miserably failed to prove the charges against workman before the Labour Court. Heard counsel for the parties. Against charge No.1 that the workman has sold fertilizer on credit to Shri Raghubir Singh son of Shri Mani Ram against receipt No. 1528, but the amount shown in the cheque was not sufficient, Before the Labour Court the Management could C.W.P. No. 17997 of 2009 [ Page numbers ] not prove charge No.1 to the effect that 99 bags of Urea worth `11,088/- were found short during the visit of DRCS Bhiwani. On the other hand, this deficiency was made good. With regard to the charge of embezzlement of `13,498/-, statement of MW2 was vague and irrelevant. The photocopies of the stock ledger, vouchers and cash book i.e. Ex.M2/1 to Ex.M2/19 were not proved. The Management in vain tried to make out a case against the respondent- workman. As against charge No.1, the workman had sold fertilizer to one Raghubir Singh son of Mani Ram against receipt No.1528. The amount shown in the cheque paid by respondents was not sufficient and therefore `35/- were taken by the workman in cash. This amount was not credited in the cash book. Raghubir Singh was not examined by the Bank. The Management has miserably failed to prove any allegation against the workman as per the charge-sheet Ex.M1. Vide order dated 19.2.2011 (Annexure P7) the Labour Court has come to a conclusion that the inquiry conducted by Shri Nihal Singh was not just and proper. The Enquiry Officer had not allowed the workman to cross- examine the witnesses. He was not produced in the Labour Court to prove the inquiry proceedings. In the background of this order, the Management has failed to prove all the three allegations in the charge-sheet Ex.M1 before the Labour C.W.P. No. 17997 of 2009 [ Page numbers ] Court. The Labour Court award dated 22.6.2009 holding that the termination of workman is illegal and void is upheld. The Labour Court has awarded a consolidated sum of `1,50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. The workman had served the Management from 6.1.1974 to 16.10.1993 i.e. 19 years. The compensation awarded in lieu of reinstatement does not call for any interference. Writ petition is dismissed. 8.9.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE