- (1.) THE petitioner, a Store Clerk with the Panipat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. , Panipat (Respondent No. 2) was dismissed from service. He filed a complaint under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') alleging inter alia that the order of dismissal had been passed during the pendency of a dispute in violation of the provision of Section 33 (2) without paying the wages for one month and seeking the approval of the Tribunal. He challenged the order of dismissal and claimed reinstatement with full back wages, This complaint having been dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal Haryana vide its award dated May 5, 1982, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. A few facts may be noticed.
(2.) THE petitioner was working as Store Clerk with Respondent No. 2 A charge-sheet dated May 31, 1979 was issued to him. It was alleged that "on February 26, 1979, while on duty in the stores, you were supposed to weigh the trucks which used to fetch the firewood to the mills from different suppliers. You allegedly wrote the gross weight of the firewood in respect of truck No. HRG 5235 as 129. 50 quintals which was later on overwritten by you and the figure was made to appear as 189. 50 quintals. " It was further alleged that "similarly for truck No. HD-490, you recorded the gross weight as 69 quintals which later on seems to have been changed to 189 quintals". On these premises, it was alleged that the petitioner had "commited" serious gross misconduct. . . . . ulterior motive in connivance with the firewood suppliers thereby causing a financial loss to the mills to the amount of Rs. 1240. . . ". The petitioner filed his reply. An enquiry into the matter was ordered. Mr. J. N. Goel, Electrical Engineer, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. Vide his report dated October 8, 1979, Mr. Goel found that the charges were not proved against the petitioner. A copy of this report has been appended as Annexure P. 1 with the writ petition. It appears that the competent authority was not satisfied with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. It forwarded the relevant documents on which the entries were alleged to have been changed to the Director, Forensic Laboratory, Haryana, Madhuban (Karnal ). A report was received vide No. 80/g-141/fsl observing that "both the cards were found tampered with. " Consequently, it asked Mr. J. N. Goel to review the enquiry in the light of the fresh evidence. Vide his letter dated April 1, 1980 (a copy of which has been produced as Annexure R. 1 with the written statement), Mr. Goel refused to go into the matter. Thereafter, Mr. R. S. Malik, an advocate of Panipat, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer as he was well versed in law. The petitioner was informed about the decision of the Management to conduct further enquiry. He, however, did not associate himself with the proceedings. Mr. R. S. Malik held the enquiry and found that the charges were proved. Vide order dated August, 5 1980, the petitioner was ordered to be dismissed from service (P-4.) The petitioner made a complaint under Section 33-A of the Act vide his application dated August 12, 1980, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P. 2 with the writ petition.
(3.) THE petitioner avers that an earlier dispute involving the workmen of the Mill including him was pending with the Industrial Tribunal. The order of dismissal was passed during the pendency of those proceedings in contravention of the provision of Section 33 of the Act. On these premises, he challenged the order of dismissal.;