- (1.) This is a Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent, 1919 against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.4.2011 passed in CWP No. 6820 of 2011 upholding the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh dated 3.1.2011 answering the reference against the management and in favour of the workman. The order of punishment of dismissal of the respondent from service dated 25.4.2003 (P7) was set aside and reinstatement was ordered with full back-wages and continuity of service.
(2.) The Labour Court in its award has found that the enquiry held against the respondent/workman for the alleged misconduct was not fair and proper. It has also been held, on an examination of the enquiry proceedings that the Enquiry Officer proceeded hastily and there was breach of principles of natural Justice inasmuch as the workman did not get an effective opportunity to explain the charge/allegations levelled against her. The pith and substance of the charge levelled was that the workman while working as Clerk-cum-Cashier at the Bank's Sito Gunno Branch on 18.1.2003 had fraudulently removed one Demand Draft leaf No. 829738 from the Demand Draft Book of the Bank and handed over that Demand Draft Book to the Officer concerned at the Branch along with the movement pass book of sensitive stationary items after entering the Demand Draft leaf at Sr. No. 829739 onwards instead of from 829738 and that she left the bank hurriedly that day. The gravamen of the charge is that on 22.1.2003 the workman resumed duty and admitted have taken the Demand Draft leaf and that she had issued the same in the name one Kewal Krishan under her signatures and that by this method adopted she got financial benefit from said Kewal Krishan. It is not in dispute that the draft was payable at the Bank's Sito Gunno Branch. It was the case of the workman that she had borrowed money from friends and relatives to defray expenses of her son's marriage and said Kewal Krishan, in whose favour the Demand Draft was issued, was one of the money lenders she had borrowed money from; that he was insisting on furnishing some security for the loan. It was in these circumstances in order to tide over immediate embarrassment and to save her honour that the respondent workman had issued a cheque on a DD leaf, instead from her cheque Book of her OD Account No. 19. She had not the intention to have used the DD leaf as a Demand Draft nor could have been used it as such because a Demand Draft cannot be issued on the same branch. It has to be issued to some other Branch and it has necessarily to been signed by an authorized signatory with his code number and the advice is to be posted to the branch where the money is to be paid. In this transaction she has not caused any financial loss to the bank. It is another matter that Kewal Krishan presented the cheque on DD leaf at Sito Gunno branch but the same was returned by the bank as it was not a valid negotiable instrument. Her admission of the transaction on return has been used against her.
(3.) The Labour Court has found, as a matter of fact, that the entire enquiry proceedings before the Enquiry Officer were concluded in the first sitting itself in a one sided and prejudicial manner. She was not given even an opportunity to file reply to the charges levelled. It is well settled that a defective enquiry is no enquiry in the eyes of law. There is nothing on record that the bank led further evidence or materials on record to substantive the charge during the proceedings before the Labour Court.;