- (1.) This petition has been filed by the Punjab diary Development Corporation Limited, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), challenging the award of the Labour court, Ludhiana, dated 15th December, 1980, by which respondent No. 3, Gurlabh Kaur, had been reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages.
(2.) Briefly stated, respondent Gurlabh Kaur was incharge of the Milk Bar at Phillaur, where a theft had taken place on the night of 18th/19th May, 1976, and in that theft milk products worth about Rs. 3,000/- where stolen by opening the locks of the Milk Bar. According to the prosecution, locks had been opened with the keys which were supposed to be in the personal custody of the respondent-workman. Therefore, the Corporation came to the view that her involvement in the'theft in connivance with the miscreants stood established, and she had lost the confidence of the management and had been rightly dismissed for misconduct of a grave nature.
(3.) The learned Labour Court, after appreciating the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that during the disciplinary inquiry, various mandatory instructions contained in the Model Standing Order had not been complied with. Further, the Labour Court found that the inquiry officer in the disciplinary inquiry himself observed that "the statement of the policeman (Munshi) could also not be recorded as he was also not present and it is the duty of the workman to produce him before the Inquiry Officer." Not only that, the workman was not afforded an opportunity to engage a coworker to defend her case, as the lady (respondent No. 3) was not well conversant with the various provisions of law and procedure. In the disciplinary inquiry, it stood established that workman Gurlabh Kaur was not present at Phillaur on the night of theft and it was probably seeing the force of her defence that the charge-sheet dated 29th May, 1976, had been withdrawn.;