- (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner - Society challenging the award dated 15.01.2014 (Annexure P -5) passed by the Labour Court, Ludhiana whereby, respondent no. 2 -workman has been reinstated into service with effect from the date of his dismissal i.e. 02.08.2002 with continuity of service and 50% back wages. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the workman was guilty of misappropriation and proper procedure was followed and inquiry was conducted and thereafter the termination order was passed. The said order was challenged by filing an appeal, which was dismissed on 22.07.2005 and, therefore, the Labour Court erred in answering the reference in favour of the workman.
(2.) AFTER hearing counsel for the petitioner at length, this Court is of the opinion that the submission is without any basis. The Labour Court has recorded a categorical finding that the proper procedure to charge sheet the workman and conduct an inquiry and then pass an order of punishment was not followed and no such departmental inquiry was conducted. The said reasoning seems to be well justified for approving the same. The facts need to be taken into consideration.
(3.) AS per the claim of the workman, he was appointed as a Salesman on 16.06.1982 and he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 30.08.2001 and vide Resolution No. 1 dated 02.08.2002, he was dismissed from service by the petitioner -Society w.e.f. 01.08.2002. At that time, he was drawing 6,700/ - per month as salary. The mandatory provisions of Sections 25 -F, 25 -G and 25 -H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') had been violated and he was given a charge sheet levelling wrong and baseless allegations and he denied the correctness of the charges against him. One Haqam Singh was appointed as Inquiry Officer, however, no witness was examined by the management in his presence nor he was given any opportunity to lead any defence and he was given show cause notice dated 08.07.2002 and he submitted his reply. The dismissal order was passed. In defence, the petitioner -society contended that the workman had embezzled a sum of Rs. 2,74,085.75/ - and he had apologized in his written reply and undertook to deposit the same. He was suspended and served a charge sheet. The matter was referred to the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, who indicted him (as an Arbitrator) and found the amount to have been misappropriated. Accordingly, the workman was dismissed from service w.e.f. 01.08.2002. The matter was referred to the Inspector, Cooperative Societies who gave opportunity to both the parties and submitted his report to the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies against the workman. The appeal filed by the workman against the award was dismissed on 25.07.2003 by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies and thereafter, sum of Rs. 3,47,715/ - was deposited. On the basis of the arbitration finding and his confessional statement, his services were terminated. The following issues were framed by the Labour Court: - "1) Whether termination of the services of the workman is justified and in order? 2) Whether the petitioner is a 'workman'? 3) Whether the inquiry was not fair and proper? 4) Whether this court has got no jurisdiction? 5) Whether it is a case of dismissal? If so its effect -;