- (1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned award of the Labour Court, Allahabad dated 12-1- 83.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for parties. The petitioner No. 1 is a public limited company which manufactures Ce ment at Satna in Madhya Pradesh. It has a godown in Naini, Allahabad and a sales depot at Bansidhar Market, Uchamandi, Allahabad. The petitioner No. 2 was the depot incharge of the Naini Godown. Respondent No. 1 was employed in the Naini Godown. On 14-12-80 hundred bags of cement were removed from the Naini Godown unauthorisedly. It is alleged that respondents No. 1 Bachchan Lal Srivastava was one of the persons who was involved in the unauthorised removal of 100 bags of Cement. He was given a show cause notice dated 16-1-81 alleging his involvement and stating that the Management has lost con fidence in him and asking him to show cause, true copy of the notice is Annexure 1 to the petition. By the order dated 23-2-81 his services were terminated vide Annexure 2. It is alleged in para 5 of the writ petition that out of the three employees involved in the incident of removal of 100 bags of Ce ment, Tarkeshwar Nath abandoned his employment after being arrested by the police and L. P. Gupta and Sumer Chand Jain resigned on receiving the show cause notice. In para 7 of the petition it is alleged that the procedure for issue of Cement from Naini godown was that the District Con trolling authority used to send a list of allot tees to the sale depot of the petitioner at Unchamandi. On production of the allot ment order and tendering the purchase amount the sale depot used to issue delivery orders to the petitioner's godown. These delivery orders were signed by either the petitioner No. 2 or the office accountant Bothra or his assistant P. R. Sharma. Cement was delivered against delivery orders and challans were issued by the godown In charge S. C. Jain or the deliveryman on duty in four copies. The original challans were handed over to the trucks taking the cement bags. No cement or challans were authorised to be issued without a delivery order. Respondent No. 1 was also authorised to issue challans in the absence of the godown incharge. On 14-12-1980 hundred bags of cement were removed from the Naini godown without any delivery order. The cement was removed in a truck of Laxmi Transport Company, a regular transporter of cement from the Naini Godown and the truck with the cement from the Naini godown, was apprehended by the police in the night of 14/15 Decem ber, 1980 in Jangiganj Police Thana area. The truck was seized by the police and the truck driver and Tarkeshwar Nath, an employee of the petitioner, were arrested. The challan with the driver was found to be of Naini Godown. When the above matter came to the knowledge of the petitioner No. 2 enquiries were made and the management was satisfied about involvement of the aforesaid persons. The stock in the godown was found to be correct and the question arose as to how these employees managed to manipulate excess cement bags in the godown. It is alleged in para 12 of the petition that during the course of preliminary inves tigation respondent No. 1 submitted two written explanations dated 17-12-80 and 29-12-80, in which he admitted having made out a challan for 100 bags of cement un authorised, true copies of which are Annexure 3 and 4 to the writ petition. After calling for his explanation from respondent No. 1, the petitioner terminated his service under clause 11 (e) of the Standing Orders of the Company. The respondent No. 1 raised a dispute which was referred to the Labour Court which decided in his favour. Hence this petition.
(3.) FROM the facts stated above it is evident that no enquiry was held against respondent No. 1. In my opinion an enquiry should have been held so that the employee concerned could have been given an oppor tunity of hearing. In my opinion when an allegation of misconduct is made against a workman he should be given a charge-sheet and a domes tic enquiry should be held against him giving him full opportunity of hearing. This is a basic principle of industrial law vide Provin cial Transport Services v. S. I. C. , AIR 1963 SC 114; Sur Enamel and Stamping Works v. Their workmen, AIR 1963 S. C. 114 etc. It is also open to the management to suspend the workman pending the enquiry.;