WP(C) 1736/2002 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI JUDGMENT & ORDER 1. This writ petition filed by one Himangshu Chakraborty (hereinafter refer red to as the workman) has been permitted to be continued by his legal heirs Smt i. Pramila Chakraborty and others following the death of the workman. An award d ated 25.8.2000 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Kamrup, has been assai led in the writ petition. 2. The Govt. of India by notification dated 6.9.99 referred the following q uestion for adjudication by the learned Tribunal. 1. Whether Sri Himangshu Chakraborty, a dismissed officer of Langpi Dehang i Rural Bank, Diphu, is a workman covered under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act ’47 ? If so whether action of the Management in dismissing his service vide their letter No.RRB/CM/15/32 dated 5.7.96 is justified? If not what relief Sri Chakra borty is entitled? 3. The aforesaid question was answered by the learned Tribunal holding Late Himangshu Chakraborty to be a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and further that the decision of the respondent Bank to dismiss the workman from service by the order/letter dated 5.7.96 was ju stified. Aggrieved, the workman had instituted the present proceeding which has been continued in the manner indicated above. 4. The case put forward by the contesting parties before the learned Tribun al may now be noticed. According to the management bank, the workman while poste d in the Advance Section of the head office of the Bank at Diphu, during the per iod 1.1.92 to 31.3.93, had encashed 53 numbers of banker’s cheques totalling Rs. 5,36,304.35 (Rupees five lacs thirty six thousand three hundred four and thirty five paise) only for purchase of court fee stamps to file Bakijai cases for real ization of loan amounts made available to different borrowers. According to the management of the Bank, though the banker’s cheques were encashed neither court fee stamps were purchased nor the Bakijai cases were instituted. In fact, the wo rkman had misappropriated the amount in question. Thereafter, a domestic enquiry was held into the specific charges leveled against the workman which were to th e following effect : (i) Shri Chakraborty encashed 53 Nos. of Bankers cheque on different dates a mounting to Rs.5,36,304.35 (Rupees five lacs thirty six thousand three hundred f our and thirty five paise only) for purchase of ACF (Advolereem Court fee stamps ) and subsequently lodged Bakijai Cases. But Shri Chakraborty neither purchased the said amount of ACF stamps nor had lodged the actual Nos of Bakijai cases wit h the different Courts. (ii) Shri Chakraborty has submitted an incorrect statement of Assets and Liab ilities as on 31.3.93. 5. It is the further case of the respondent Bank that in the domestic enqui ry that was held the workman had appeared and he was given due opportunity to de fend himself. At the conclusion of the enquiry the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges leveled against the workman to be proved. The Discip linary Authority thereafter concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer a nd after complying with all requirements of law in this regard had dismissed the workman by order dated 5.7.96. It may be specifically noticed at this stage tha t in the written statement filed the respondent bank had also contended that Lat e Himangshu Chakraborty was not a workman under the definition contained in Sect ion 2(s) of the Act inasmuch as he was appointed and had worked as an Officer of the Bank. 6. The workman had also filed his written statement before the learned Trib unal denying the charges leveled against him and contending that, though appoint ed as an officer, at not point of time he was empowered to take any independent decision on behalf of the bank and that all along he had continued to discharge duties which was clerical in nature. In the written statement filed the workman has also contended that the allegation of misappropriation is not correct inasmu ch he had purchased the court fees from an Advocate’s clerk, one Sri R. C. Das, and thereafter had filed the necessary cases. The workman in the written stateme nt filed had also contended that in the domestic enquiry that was held he was no t given full opportunity to defend himself as a result of which the findings of the Enquiry Officer were arrived at in violation of the principles of natural ju stice. 7. The learned Tribunal, by the Award dated 25.8.2000, on due consideration of the cases pleaded by the respective parties and the evidence and materials a dduced came to the conclusion that Late Himangshu Chakraborty, though appointed as an officer, in view of the nature of duties performed by him would come withi n the meaning of ’workman’ as contained in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disput es Act, 1947. No specific challenge to the said finding has been made by the res pondent Bank. Though Sri S. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent Bank, h as referred to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure to contend that it is open for the respondent Bank while supporting the eventua l conclusion of the learned Tribunal to challenge any finding that may have been recorded against the respondent, no specific argument on this score has, howeve r, been advanced. That apart, the finding of the learned Tribunal in this regard being based on a consideration of the evidence and materials on record, in the absence of anything further, the said finding would not be open to any kind of i nterference of the Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Consti tution. 8. This will bring the Court to a consideration of the second limb of the f indings recorded by the learned Tribunal. A reading of the Award dated 25.8.2000 indicates that several documents exhibited by the management before the learned Tribunal including the report of the Enquiry Officer was elaborately considered by the learned Tribunal to come to the finding that the conduct of the domestic enquiry against the workman was in full compliance with all the requirements of law and the principles of natural justice. The report of the Enquiry Officer is not available for perusal of the Court. In fact the correspondence exchanged in this regard indicates that the records of the proceedings before the learned Tr ibunal may have been destroyed. Be that as it may, on the findings recorded by t he learned Tribunal and in the absence of any contrary material the matter need not be pursued any further. 9. The learned Tribunal has also elaborately considered the case of the wor kman pleaded before it, viz., that there was no misappropriation of the amount c overed by the banker’s cheques which were utilized to purchase court fee stamps and to institute the Bakijai proceedings. In this regard the evidence of the Adv ocate’s clerk, Sri R. C. Das, who was examined by the workman, was considered by the learned Tribunal. On such consideration it was found that the certificates given by the said Advocate’s clerk with regard to purchase of court fee and inst itution of Bakijai proceedings were for periods prior to the date of the banker’ s cheques. There was, therefore, no reasonable connection between what was depos ed to by the said witness examined on behalf of the workman and the charges leve led against him. In this regard, the learned Tribunal also relied on the evidenc e of MW 1 to the effect that no court fee was purchased by the workman for the a mount covered by the banker’s cheques. That apart, the learned Tribunal also too k account the fact that the workman was involved in similar acts displaying lack of integrity on earlier occasions on which occasions he was leniently dealt wit h. The said facts were considered by the learned Tribunal to determine whether t he punishment of dismissal was in any way harsh or oppressive. The said issue wa s also found against the workman. It has, therefore, to be concluded that the co nclusions recorded by the learned Tribunal are perfectly justified and the punis hment imposed cannot be said to be harsh or oppressive or arbitrary so as to war rant any interference with the Award dated 25.8.2000 passed by the learned Tribu nal. 10. The writ petition, consequently, is found to be without any merit and/or substance. It is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs.