Tarun Agarwala - (1.) -Heard Shri Shishadri Trivedi, the learned counsel holding the brief of Sri Samir Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. N. Tripathi, the learned counsel holding the brief of Sri A. K. Verma, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.
(2.) THE respondent No. 1 is a workman under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act and was working in the diesel room of the Central Workshop of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and while coming out from the security gate, was stopped and physically checked in the presence of witnesses and was caught taking out certain articles belonging to the Corporation, having a value. On the charge of an alleged theft, the workman was initially placed under suspension and thereafter charge-sheeted. It has come on record that a first information report was also lodged against the workman. The workman denied the charge and accordingly, the management decided to hold a domestic enquiry in the matter. It was contended that full opportunity was given to the workman to defend himself. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the charge of theft stood proved against him. On the basis of this report, a show cause notice was given to the workman, and thereafter, the services of the workman was terminated by an order dated 29.4.1997. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of termination, the workman raised an industrial dispute and the matter was referred for adjudication to the labour court under Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.
(3.) BEFORE the labour court, the workman filed his written statement alleging that no proper opportunity was given to him to defend himself in the departmental proceedings and that in any case, the charge of theft was not proved. The management also filed a written statement contending that full opportunity was given to the workman to defend himself and that the enquiry officer found that the charge of theft stood proved against him. The labour court after considering the evidence that was brought on the record, found that since the workman was acquitted in the criminal proceedings, consequently, he was liable to be exonerated in the domestic enquiry proceedings. The labour court also found that the charge of theft was not proved and came to this conclusion on the ground that the witness of the employer E.W. 2 was not present at the time when the workman was apprehended by the security guards.;