LPA No. 200 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 200 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision 9 .9.2010 Gurdeep Singh ... Appellant Versus The Dhadogal CASS Ltd. and another... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Ms. Jagdeep Bains ,Advocate for the appellant 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been filed by the workman challenging order dated 10.9.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ petition filed by the appellant-workman has been accepted and the award of the Labour Court has been set aside to the extent that he is deemed to be removed from service without back wages. The learned Single Judge, however has converted the dismissal into removal from service and have also held the workman entitled to terminal benefits that may become payable for his service from the date of joining the service till the date when the award was passed. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-workman was appointed as Salesman by the Dhadogal Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. on 18.6.1981. His services were terminated on 16.8.1994. The workman claimed that no enquiry officer was appointed and his termination from service was based on serious charges of embezzlement. On reference LPA No. 200 of 2010 2 sought, the dismissal of the workman was upheld by the Labour Court as per award dated 3.12.1996 (P.4). The award was challenged before the Writ Court and the learned Single Judge has found that in the absence of regular departmental enquiry, the Labour Court committed grave error in law in inferring that the workman had indulged in embezzlement and that it was a case of release of fertilizer against credit account available for a member of the Society. The view of the learned Single Judge is discernible from paras 4 and 5 of the judgement which reads thus: “4. In my view, such an inference was clearly wrong. It was not even a case of temporary embezzlement where the amount from a customer was being retained by the workman and deposited later to constitute an act of temporary embezzlement. On the other hand, it was a case of release of fertilizer stock against a credit account available for a member and the actual money which was available had also been paid by the son. It was in evidence that the Bank itself had not known the fact of death of Hazura Singh when the fertilizer had been released in the name of Hazura Singh. If there was an impropriety, the impropriety was that the workman attested the thumb- impression of Hazura Singh in November, 1983 even though he could not have been present, he having died even the previous month. 5. If the charge against the workman was that he had caused loss, it was not again correct. If the implication of the charge again was that the workman was guilty of embezzlement, even that was not correct for no part of the money collected from the LPA No. 200 of 2010 3 Bank, was being retained by the workman. It was, on the other hand, a case of operation of a credit limit extended to a member and the money having been paid subsequently by the son. The indiscretion of the workman in permitting the stocks to be released was the only offence. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that under the rules of the Society, the legal heirs of the deceased member also became a member after the death and the goods issued in the name of Hazura Singh would still be available to his son in his capacity as a legal heir when his name was substituted. On such a consideration, it could be seen that there was not even a case of a mis-delivery of some goods to a person, who was not entitled to the goods. What had been delivered in November, 1983, could have been probably delivered after the death to his son, had he been entered in their records as a member. “ The learned Single Judge also found that no loss of the establishment had ever been established and there was not even a charge against the appellant- workman that he was dis-honest. It was on the basis of the aforesaid factual position that the learned Single Judge converted the order of dismissal into that of removal and also granted him all the terminal benefits that would become payable from the date of joining service till the date when the award was passed. Having heard the learned counsel we are of the considered view that no interference in the view taken by the learned Single Judge would be warranted. The appeal is wholly without merit and the same is thus liable to be dismissed. For the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and the same is LPA No. 200 of 2010 4 dismissed. As the main appeal itself has been decided on merit, no orders are required to be passed on the application seeking condonation of four days delay in filing the appeal. (M.M.Kumar) Judge ( Ritu Bahri ) 9 .9.2010 Judge okg