D.S.Sinha - (1.) HEARD Sri Vijay Ratan Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. K. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent no. 1.
(2.) AWARD of the Central Government Industrial\ Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, hereinafter called the respondent no. 2, dated 24th December, 1985 rendered in Industrial Dispute No. 192 of 1981 in the matter of dispute between the respondent no. 1 and the petitioner, referred under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter called the Act, directing the reinstatement of the respondent no. 1 is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Sri Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that challenge in instant petition is confined only with regard to the reinstatement of the petitioner. He contends that, in view of the fact that he was holding a position of trust and confidence and that he was found by the tribunal to be guilty of the charge of submission of forged, false and inflated medical bills, direction of the tribunal to reinstate the petitioner in service was bad in law. While posted as Cashier/Godown Keeper at Hotel Clarks Awadh, Lucknow Branch of the Union Bank of India the respondent no. 1 submitted medical bills which were suspected to be false and inflated. This led to institution, of a domestic enquiry during which the respondent no. 1 was found guilty of submitting forged, false and inflated medical bills. On the basis of finding of guilt, recorded during the enquiry, an order dated 17th May, 1977 dismissing the respondent no. 1 from service was passed. The dismissal of the respondent no. 1 was agitated before the respondent no 2, in a reference under Section 10 of the Act. The respondent no. 2 concluded that the charges against the respondent no. 1 stood substantiated and the finding of the domestic enquiry in. that regard was correct. It, however, concluded that the punishment, of dismissal was 'very grave', and that the punishment of fine by way of deduction of pay to the tune of 50% from the date of dismissal till the date of award would meet the ends of justice. The respondent no. 2, therefore, passed the impugned award,directing reinstatement of the respondent no. 1 with 50% back wages for the period between the date of dismissal and the date of the award.
(3.) IT cannot be disputed that the position of Cashier/Godown Keeper of the petitioning Bank is that of absolute trust and confidence which should not be manned by a person who has been found to be guilty of forgery and attempt to make unlawful gain by submitting false and inflated madical bills. With the finding that the respondent no. 1 committed forgery by submitting false and inflated bills staring it is difficult to conclude that the petitioner should continue to repose trust and confidence in the respondent no. 1. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to, invoke and plead loss of confidence to resist reinstatement of the respondent no. 1. In the case of Anil Kumar Chakraborty v. Saraswatipuf Tea Company Ltd., 1982 (i) LLJ 483, decided by the Honourable Supreme Court of India, reinstatement of a compounder, who while employed with the Tea Company and entrusted with Drugs and medicines for being supplied and distributed to the needy and ailing workers free of cost by abusing his position of trust indulged in trafficking the drugs and medicines to the detriment of the health and well being of the workers, was found improper and inexpedient. For holding the reinstatement of Anil Kumar Chakraborty to be improper and inexpedient, the Honourable Supreme Court relied upon its earlier decision, rendered in the case of Ruby General Insurance Co. v. Chopra, 1970 (1) LLJ 63, wherein it had denied the relief of reinstatement having regard to the fact that the employee was holding a position of trust and confidence.;