K.C. Agrawal, A.C.J. - (1.) This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by M/s. Triveni Structural Limited, Naini Allahabad, challenging the award dated February 7, 1981 holding that no charge of theft, alleged to have been committed by the respondent No. 1 (V.K.V. Pilley) on 19-7-1974 had been established and that the punishment given to him by the domestic enquiry was unjustified, illegal and arbitrary
(2.) The respondent No. 1 was an employee of the petitioner (M/s. Triveni Structurals Limited, Naini, Allahabad). On 19-7-1974 he was in the first shift, which commenced from 6 a.m. and continued upto 2 p.m., with lunch break from 11 to 11.30 a.m. The workers in the machine shop were given cupboard/almirah/drawer, where they could keep the tools given in their personal charge under their lock and key. The respondent No. 1 was also given an almirah for keeping his personal belongings by way of safety. On 19-7-1974 there was a lunch break at about 11 a.m. when Kasbmira Singh, who was a supervisor of the Machine shop, found that the respondent No. 1 was taking out his bag from the almirah, which was full with brass chips. The said supervisor reported the matter to the production Engineer, who came to the machine shop and found at about 12.55 p.m. one tiffin box filled with brass chips. A charge-sheet dated 20-7-1974 was issued to the respondent No. 1 charging him of misconduct of keeping unauthorised possession of the petitioners valuable property with the intention of stealing the same. The respondent was called upon to show cause why disciplinary section be not taken against him.
(3.) The respondent did not file his reply. Thereafter a domestic enquiry was set up to enquire into the charges. In the domestic enquiry the petitioner was found guilty. After the domestic enquiry the respondent was acquitted by the criminal court by holding that he was not guilty of charge of theft levelled against him. Thereafter he raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to by the Government under Section 10 read with Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. This case was thereafter transferred under Section 4-K read with Section 2-A of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act.;