- (1.) The appellant, Makhan Singh, was working as the Secretary of Narainpura Co-operative Agricultural Service Society Limited. Narainpura, District Ferozepur Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society') He did not attend to his duties between May 11. 1981 and May 29, 1981 and that he had stayed away from work during that period. The Society passed a resolution on May 30. 1981 terminating his services. On an industrial dispute being raised the Labour Commissioner, Punjab referred the following questions to the Labour Court, Bhatinda under S. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Whether termination of services of Makhan Singh, workman is justified and in order If not, to what relief/exact amount of compensation is he entitled
(2.) Before the Labour Court the appellant filed his statement of claim in which he asserted that he had not attended to his work between May 11, 1981 and May 29, 1981 due to his illness, that he had taken leave for that period and that his services had been terminated by the management without any justification. He further alleged that he had put in six years of service in the Society and was drawing a salary of Rs. 460/- per month at the time of the termination of his services. He prayed for reinstatement in his post and also for back wages. The Society contested the claim of the appellant on various grounds. It alleged that the Society was not an industry and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not applicable. It pleaded that the appellant had gone 'on a strike' without obtaining any leave and that he had also committed embezzlement of the money belonging to the Society. The Labour Court found that the appellant had committed embezzlement and that he had absented himself from duties without obtaining leave. It accordingly found that the termination of the services of the appellant was justified. It, however, held that the Society was an industry and the Labour Court had jurisdiction to pass the award. The Labour Court accordingly rejected the claim. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court the appellant filed a writ petition in Civil Writ Petition No. 561 of 1986 on the file of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. That petition was dismissed in limine by the High Court on February 3, 1986. This appeal by special leave has been filed by the appellant against the decision of the High Court as well as against the award of the Labour Court.
(3.) Admittedly, no domestic enquiry was held by the management before passing the order of termination of the appellant's services. Before the Labour Court the management tried to justify the order of termination of appellant's services on the two grounds, namely, that the appellant had embezzled certain amounts of the Society and that he had absented himself from duty without obtaining leave. The evidence led by the management in support of the embezzlement alleged by it is very scrappy indeed. It relied upon the evidence of Ram Sarup, who was working as the Secretary of the Society that the appellant had received a sum of Rs. 125/- from one shareholder Bhaga Ram but he had made an entry in the account books stating that only a sum of Rs. 100/- had been received and that the appellant had received a sum of Rs. 1125/- and Rs. 150/- from Sat Pal and Jagir Singh, shareholders of the Society respectively and had made entries in the account books showing that he had received Rs. 920/- and Rs. 125/- respectively from them. The management produced three photostat copies of the entries in the pass books which were marked as Exhibits M/1 to M/3. The originals were not produced. The appellant denied having misappropriated the amount of Rs. 25/- in the first case, Rs. 205/- in the second case and Rs. 25/- in the third case. He stated that the photostat copies were fabricated documents. The Labour Court however accepted the evidence placed before it by the management. It did not go into the question whether the photostat copies, Exhibits M/1 to M/3, could be accepted as evidence in the absence of the originals. The award shows that no explanation had been given by the management for not producing the originals. We are not satisfied with the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the appellant had embezzled amounts belonging to the Society. The said finding is without any basis and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. The Labour Court has also accepted that the appellant had absented himself from duty without obtaining leave. It is interesting to note that the case of the Society before the Labour Court was that the appellant had gone on a strike without getting any leave. If he had gone on. a strike no question of obtaining any leave would arise. The appellant gave evidence before the Labour Court stating that he was ill and, therefore, he was not able to attend to his duties. He also stated that he had obtained necessary leave sanctioned before absenting himself from duties. Of course, the appellant could not produce any record showing that he had given the application for leave to the management which could only be in the possession of the society. In any event there was no reason at all for rejecting the evidence given by him. The finding on the above question is also not sustainable on the material placed before the Court. We regret to observe that the approach of the Labour Court to the whole case is highly casual and superficial.;