1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2450/2005. BHANWAR LAL SONI VS. JUDGE, LABOUR COURT & INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, SRI GANGANAGAR DATE OF ORDER : 06.08.2008. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. Kuldeep Mathur for the petitioner. Mr. Jagdish Vyas for the respondents. By this petition for writ, a challenge is given to the award dated 26.04.2004 passed by the Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar answering the reference made to it by the appropriate government under notification dated 27.01.2003 in the terms that “Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank in awarding the punishment of dismissal from service without notice of Shri Bhanwar Lal Soni vide order dated 13.12.2000 was legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and from what date”? By the order dated 20.02.204, the labour court held that the enquiry was not fair and, therefore, an opportunity was given to the employer to adduce evidence as allowed under 2 Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The evidence was recorded before the labour court and after considering the same, the labour court reached at the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty for committing a misconduct as prescribed under para 5(A) of the Chapter 19 of the bipartite settlement. While assailing validity of the award impugned, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the labour court failed to appreciate that the charge against the workman was relating to unauthorized involvement in his own business and whatever evidence adduced by the employer was relating to the participation of the petitioner in business of his wife, Smt. Alka Soni. It is also asserted that there was no evidence available on record, even to prove participation of the workman with the activities of M/s. Pooja Sales Promotion – a firm under Proprietorship of Smt. Alka Soni. An alternative argument is also advanced that the penalty of dismissal is disproportionate to the delinquency said to be proved. I have examined the award impugned. 3 As stated above, an enquiry was made by the labour court itself after holding that the fair opportunity for defence was not given to the workman. On basis of the evidence adduced before the labour court, a finding of fact is given that the petitioner forwarded customers of the bank for recurring amount for recurring deposits, to avail the same type of deposits with Pooja Sales Promotion – a firm run by his wife. From minute examination of the evidence available, it is apparent that at least on 11 occasions, the workman made efforts to detract the customers of the bank from getting their accounts opened for recrruing deposits and all those persons were diverted for business with Pooja Sales Promotion. It is also relevant to note that certain cheques were issued by the petitioner on behalf of Pooja Sales Promotion and those were ultimately dishonored. Looking to the evidence available on record, I do not find any error in the finding given by the labour court. So far as the issue regarding disproportionality of the penalty is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that a workman is always required to act in interest of employer and if by any positive and cautious action, he behaves against the interest of the employer, then such misconduct must be treated as quite serious one. In the instant matter, on basis of the evidence, learned labour court found the petitioner workman 4 guilty for committing the misconduct as prescribed under Rule 5A of the Chapter 19 of the bipartite settlement and that was against the interest of the employer, thus, no interference with the award is required. Accordingly, the petition for writ stands dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/