- (1.) THIS Judgment will also dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 2851 of 1985 as both these petitions arise out of the same award of the Labour Court dated November 30, 1984.
(2.) THE workman, Shri G. S. Pannu, was employed as Assistant Storekeeper with the Corporation, that is, the Punjab Agro-Industries Corporation, Limited, with effect from June 30, 1972. His services were terminated by order dated October 29, 1980, on the basis of a regular departmental enquiry on the charges the essence whereof is that hr showed the issuance of stores in excess of what had been actually requisitioned from him and made interpolations in the record to cover that lapse, the value of such stores being about Rs. 30,000/ -. He raised dispute with regard to the legality of the said order in his demand notice dated February 11, 1981, and ultimately, the Chandigarh Administration referred the same to the Labour Court vide order dated November 13, 1981, under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, (hereinafter called the Act ). The Labour Court, after framing the issues, came to the conclusion :- "the evidence led before the department did not warrant an increase of the element of dishonesty being there. The workman admittedly joined the respondent Corporation after Army service and it appears that he was too simple for the arduous job of storekeeper and had not as yet acquired proficiency needed for that job. " Thus, according to the Labour Court, the extreme punishment of dismissal from service would manifestly appear to be disproportionate to the charges proved against him. It was, therefore, concluded by the Labour Court that the workman deserved to be given a chance to prove his worth. Withholding of backwages, in his views, would be a sufficient punishment for the inefficiency and negligence in the performance of his duties. In view of this finding, this Labour Court answered the reference in the following terms : "in the result, reference is decided with the finding that though impugned order terminating the services of the workman is not illegal but it is not justified and is rather disproportionate to the charge proved against him. It is therefore liable to be set aside and management is directed to reinstate him into service with all the benefits of continuity but without his being entitled to back wages. " Dissatisfied with the same, the employer Corporation has filed Civil Writ Petition No. 2020 of 1985 whereas the workman Shri G. S. Pannu filed Civil Writ Petition No. 2851 of 1985, claiming backwages as well.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner employer submitted that once the charges were found to have been proved, there was no occasion for the Labour Court to convert the punishment of dismissal and to reinstate the workman. According to the learned counsel, the charges proved were of misapropriation and overwriting and, thus, the same being serious, order of termination were rightly passed by the employer.;