D.P. Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner Bank challenges order dated May 1, 1985 and February 18, 1986 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in a reference arising out of termination of respondent No. 2 workman, which reference is still pending before the Tribunal to be answered.
(2.) Brief facts for the decision of this petition are that the respondent workman while working as a clerk in the petitioner bank was suspended vide order dated August 30, 1971 when a fraud was detected and first information reports were lodged. As it is in such cases the criminal (sic) investigation came to naught. Without any success, the respondent-workman challenged his suspension in a suit. A departmental enquiry was set in motion and a charge-sheet dated December 3, 1974 was served upon him. The charges related to specific cases of forgery in the ledger account of one individual who interestingly made payment through cheques in favour of a firm in the name of the wife of the workman himself. In the departmental enquiry the workman admitted his guilt, as aforesaid, in helping the party. After he had admitted his wrong doings, the enquiry was closed and he was dismissed from service. The workman took the matter to a departmental appeal which was also rejected. This gave rise to an Adjudication Case No. 83 of 1978. The Tribunal vide its order dated May 1, 1985 held that the acceptance of negligence by the workman did not automatically mean that he had accepted his guilt, held that the enquiry was not fair and thus gave an opportunity to the petitioner bank to lead evidence to prove the charge. The respondent workman filed a review application dated June 21, 1985 on the ground that since the bank did not ask for leading evidence, the Court could not grant them such liberty. Further prayer was made that he ought to be paid the wages during the pendency of the reference before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide the second impugned order dated February 18, 1986 after directing the petitioner bank to keep on making payments to the workman as if no order of termination was in existence, upheld its earlier order so far as the permission to the petitioner for leading of evidence was concerned. It also fixed a date for leading of evidence by the parties. In reaching a decision with regard to payment of emoluments to the workman, the Tribunal had taken resort to certain bipartite settlements where a workman was entitled for payment, in case of a criminal case not being found to be true.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that criminal trial and a departmental enquiry are totally different. He has further submitted that the management was within right to pass an order of termination and till it is set aside the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to grant wages as it would otherwise mean that the Tribunal has prejudged the issue.;