SBCWP3653cw1997 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3653/1997 Jagdish Prasad Prajapat Vs. The Judge, Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Ajmer and Another Date of Order ::: 15.03.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Sunil Samdaria, Counsel for petitioner- workman Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma with Shri Kapil M. Chandra, Counsel for respondent No.2-employer #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for parties. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner-workman being aggrieved by Award of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ajmer, (for short, 'the Labour Court'), by which reference on question of validity of termination of his services by respondent- employer has been answered in terms that action of respondent in terminating his services was legal and valid and that he was not entitled to any relief. Shri Sunil Samdaria, learned counsel for petitioner, has argued that charges agaisnt petitioner were not grave enough so as to SBCWP3653cw1997 // 2 // warrant penalty of removal from service. Learned counsel submitted that disciplinary authority has passed order of removal dated 11.04.1986 in cryptic manner and the same is also a non-speaking order. No discussion of nature of allegation and evidence has been made in the order. Learned counsel submitted that such an order has to be held nullity in law. In support of his argument, learned counsel has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India – AIR 1990 SC 1984. Learned counsel referred to charge- sheet dated 24.01.1984 to argue that allegation against petitioner was that he prepared two pay slips, both bearing No.203, one of them in name of Babu Singh S/o Heera Singh and on the basis whereof some third person received the amount of Rs.302.83p. It was not the allegation against petitioner that he himself was beneficiary in the sense that he received that amount. The evidence before enquiry officer and also before Labour Court could not prove as to who was the one who received the said amount. Allegation in charge-sheet dated 03.10.1983 was also of very superficial nature. In that, it was alleged that the petitioner received an amount of Rs.40.87p. on behalf of one SBCWP3653cw1997 // 3 // Kanhaiyalal giving receipt on the understanding that Kanhaiyalal has authorized him to receive said amount. Learned counsel submitted that the Labour Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence available on the record and that since order of removal of petitioner from service is cryptic and non-speaking one, such order is liable to be quashed and set-aside and the award be also set aside, thus granting the relief of reinstatement with all the consequential benefits to the petitioner. Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.2-employer, opposed the writ petition and submitted that charge against petitioner was quite serious; in that he fabricated a pay slip in the name of a non- existing person who was not on the roll and that he connived with someone in illegally withdrawing the amount of Rs.302.23p. Subsequent charge against him was also of receiving of sum of Rs.40.87p. on behalf of one Kanhaiyalal pretending that said workman has authorized him to collect the said amount, whereas the evidence has proved that Kanhaiyalal was not on duty on that date and that he, in his statement before the Labour Court, clearly disowned the statement of the SBCWP3653cw1997 // 4 // petitioner that he had authorized him. Upon hearing learned counsel for parties and perusing the record, I find the charges against petitioner was indeed of very serious nature. The Labour Court was satisfied on the basis of evidence that was led before it that there was no one working with the employer in the name of Babu Singh Son of Heera Singh. Two pay slips bearing Serial No.203 were prepared; one was in the name of Noora Son of Zafru for a sum of Rs.82.94p. The evidence produced by the management before the Labour Court especially Mohan Lal, proved that both the pay slips were in handwriting of the petitioner. Petitioner cannot take advantage of the fact that who actually received the amount was not proved. The fact is that once petitioner is held to be the author of both the pay slips, how could he prepare two pay slips at the same serial No.203 and when genuine person Noora received amount of Rs.82.94p. against pay slip No.203, how could another person receive amount of Rs.302.23p. This became possible only because petitioner prepared two pay slips and yet he did not know the workman in whose name he prepared another pay slip. This allegation has been proved against the petitioner not only by SBCWP3653cw1997 // 5 // the statement of Mohan Lal but also Kundanlal Dagdi and handwriting expert Shri Krishna Charan. In fact, Shri Kundanlal stated that the counter signature by way of initials contained on pay slips were not his initials and thus the charge against petitioner of preparing forged pay slips and fabricating initials of said Shri Kundanlal Dagdi, was proved. Another charge of illegal withdrawal of amount of Rs.40.87p. in the name of Kanhaiyalal was also proved against petitioner because Shri Kanhaiyalal Dagdi in his evidence before Labour Court clearly stated that he never authorized petitioner to receive the said amount on his behalf and in fact there was no question of his having been paid such wages because on that date he was not on duty. The petitioner's contention that the order of disciplinary authority not being speaking, is liable to be set-aside, cannot be accepted in view of fact that domestic enquiry conducted by respondent-employer was held to be fair and proper and even the evidence led before the labour Court by the parties independently proved the charge against petitioner. It is trite law that standard and degree of proof in domestic enquiry is by preponderance of evidence and is not as rigid as it is in the SBCWP3653cw1997 // 6 // criminal trial where the offence is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence that was led before the Labour Court was sufficient to bring home the guilt of the petitioner. I do not find any illegality in the impugned Award which may warrant interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//