ARUN TANDON, J. - (1.) Per Heard Sri A.B. Saran, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Parmatma Rai advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Sri K.P. Agarwal, senior advocate, assisted by Sumati Rani Gupta advocate on behalf of respondents.
(2.) Indian Overseas Bank through its authorised signatory has filed this writ petition against the award of the Labour Court Kanpur dated September 2, 2004 passed in Industrial Dispute No. 51 of 2000. Under the award the workman, Sri S.P. Tripathi, has been directed to be reinstated in service, with back wages from the date the reference was so made with continuity of service. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows.
(3.) Sri. S.P. Tripathi, respondent No. 1, was appointed to work as Bill Collector in the respondent-bank at Kanpur Branch. Sri S.P. Tripathi was required to collect the instalments from the small borrowers from the place of their business/residence and to make entries in their pass books after collecting the money and to deposit the same in their respective accounts with the Bank. Sri S.P. Tripathi was served with a charge-sheet dated February 23, 1993 for committing certain acts of commission and omission. Broadly stated the main allegation was that Sri S.P. Tripathi had collected a sum of Rs. 500/- on December 30, 1987 from one loanee Smt. Shyama Gaur. He also made entries in her pass book but he deposited only Rs. 200/- on January 1, 1988 and misappropriated the balance of Rs. 300/-. One Sri K.P. Sadhasivan was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The enquiry officer is said to have conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted his report. The disciplinary authority after receipt of the said enquiry report is said to have issued a show cause notice to the workman to show cause as to why the punishment of dismissal from service be not imposed. The disciplinary authority ultimately on December 18, 1995 passed the order of punishment, whereby the workman was awarded penalty of dismissal from service with immediate effect. Against the order of punishment the workman filed an appeal before the appellate authority which was dismissed. Against the said order the petitioner-workman filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19576 of 1998 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated August 18, 1998 on the ground of availability of alternative remedy before the Industrial Tribunal. The workman filed Special Appeal No. 445 of 1998 (Defective). The appeal was allowed, the appellate order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority to pass fresh order. The appellate authority, thereafter passed a fresh order dated February 12, 1999 and dismissed the appeal again. The workman thereafter raised an industrial dispute. The dispute was referred under the Central Government Notification dated August 7, 2000 for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court framed a preliminary issue, namely whether the domestic enquiry conducted was fair and proper? The aforesaid issue was decided under order of the Presiding Officer dated March 27, 2002 and it was held that the enquiry proceedings stood vitiated being in violation of principles of natural justice as also being based on inadmissible evidence. Thereafter the Labour Court afforded opportunity to the management to lead evidence for bringing home the charge against the workman. The Labour Court by means of impugned award dated September 2, 2004 held that the management has failed to establish the guilt of the employee in respect of the charge levelled and therefore the impugned action of the management was illegal, the workman was entitled to be reinstated in the service of the bank. It was provided that the workman shall be paid wages from the date of reference only the intervening period between dismissal and the date of reference shall be treated as the period of no pay no work. The workman has also been held entitled for continuity of service. It is this order against which the present writ petition has been filed.;