Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed with the prayer for quashing the impugned award dated 15.2.2011 passed by the Labour Court/respondent No. 2 by which the workman/respondent No. 1 was directed to be re-instated in service, but he will not be entitled for any benefit during the period of unemployment. The brief facts of the case are that the workman/respondent No. 1 has been charged for alleged embezzlement of Rs. 9683/- by manipulation in the way bill and tickets for which he was charge-sheeted on 12.1.2004; that the workman/ respondent No. 1 moved an application for change of the inquiry officer, but the inquiry was concluded without considering his request. Thereafter, on 5.9.2005, a show-cause notice was issued to the workman/respondent No. 1 with inquiry report and proposed punishment to which the workman/respondent No. 1 submitted reply. Subsequently, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 8.6.2006 with direction to recover Rs. 9683/- from his dues. The workman preferred a departmental appeal against the order dated 8.6.2006 which was rejected. He then raised an industrial dispute in respect of his dismissal from service, but respondent No. 2 passed the impugned award in favour of workman/respondent No. 1. Hence the present writ petition has been filed. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite full opportunity being given to the workman/respondent No. 1 by the inquiry officer to produce evidence on record, he has failed to prove his case; that the Labour Court has completely ignored the findings of the departmental enquiry in awarding the impugned award in favour of the workman/respondent No. 1; that the Labour Court has completely ignored the cross examination of workman/respondent No. 1 in which he himself admitted cutting and mistake in the way bill.
(3.) IN support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments: 1. Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) v. A T. Mane, 2005 SCC (L & S)407. 2. West Bokaro Colliery (TISCO LTD.) v. Ram Pravesh Singh, (2008) 1 SCC (L & S) 890. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Labour Court after recording finding of fact in favour of the workman/respondent No. 1, has rightly passed the impugned award in favour of the workman/respondent No. 1 as the workman had been denied reasonable opportunity of being heard and to defend himself. The relevant portion regarding denial of opportunity recorded by the Labour Court reads thus: JUDGEMENT_438_ADJ9_2011Image1.jpg JUDGEMENT_438_ADJ9_2011Image2.jpg It has further been held that the domestic enquiry proceedings were initiated as the workman was deliberately denied fair and proper hearing; that procedure adopted by the enquiry officer was illegal and that the Rules and Regulations for domestic enquiry were given a go-bye precluding the workman to bring on record evidence and witnesses in support of his case.;