D.V. Sehgal, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of C.W.Ps. Nos. 2145 and 3767 of 1985 as they are directed against the same award dated 4th August, 1985, made by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Faridabad - -while the former petition has been filed by the management, the latter one has been filed by the workman.
(2.) OR facility of reference, I shall take the facts from C.W.P. No. 2145 of 1985. Mr. Mahipal Sharma, workman, was employed as Senior Assistant in the Stores Department in the Tractor Division of M/s. Escorts Ltd., Faridabad, on 25th July, 1978. He was on probation for a period of three months. His probation was extended for another period of three months and finally he was confirmed with effect from 1st February, 1979. It is the case of the Petitioner that in is capacity as Senior Stores Assistant, the workman, had direct access to various stores items. On 5th May, 1983, the dickey of his scooter was checked by the security staff at the time he was leaving the factory after his duty was over. Four pieces of overload relays belonging to the Company were found from the dickey. These store items were wrapped in a brown envelope and the workman had unauthorized removed the same from the stores with the intension of taking them out of the factory. The workman gave his statement on the spot in writing confirming recovery of the said items of stores from the dickey of his scooter. Another employee, Mr. R.K. Kuckreja, who is also an office -bearer of the workers' union, happened to be present at the time of the search. He also gave his statement in writing confirming the said recovery during the course of checking by the security staff. Theft of the employer's property being an act of gross misconduct, the workman was served with a chargesheet on 6th May, 1983. He was placed under suspension and enquiry proceedings were taken up against him. The workman submitted his explanation dated 7th May, 1983 denying the allegations. The domestic enquiry was conducted according to the principles of natural justice. The workman was given full opportunity to cross examine the witnesses produced in support of the charges against him. He was also afforded an opportunity to produce his defense. After conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer sub -emitted his report holding the workman guilty of charges leveled against him. The employer accepted the said report and since the charges established were very serious, particularly in respect of the workman who was responsible for proper custody of the stores items and who had been found guilty of an attempt to pilfer stores items, the employer dismissed him from service - -vide letter dated 12th April, 1984.
(3.) THE workman submitted a demand notice. His demand for reinstatement was not accepted by the employer. The proceedings before the Labour -cum -Reconciliation Officer for settlement also failed. On an application made by the worker, reference of the dispute was made to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Faridabad, Respondent No. 1, who after receiving the pleadings of the parties and recording evidence adduced before him, made his award dated 4th February 1985 Annexure P. 1. In the award Respondent No. 1 held that the domestic enquiry against the workman was fair and proper. On the question whether the termination of the services of the workman was justified and in order, Respondent No. 1 observed as under: The claimant was dismissed as four pieces of overload relays were found from the dickey, of this scooter. This is a serious misconduct. The management has lost confidence in him. Hence the workman who was found to have committed theft, is liable to suffer extreme penalty. Hence -the order of dismissal is justified and in order. However, the above conclusion arrived at by Respondent No. 1 in the award Annexure P. 1, is followed by his observations -which are as under: But taking into consideration the fact that no persons had seen him putting these articles in the dickey of the scooter, the scooter stand is also guarded by the, watchman of the company, the workman is searched" while entering the scooter stand, in these circumstances it cannot be said that the claimant had put these overload relays in the dickey of his scooter. It is also stated that the lock of the scooter was also defective. His past record was also not bad. In these circumstances, I give the benefit of Section 11 -A to the claimant and order his reinstatement with continuity of service but without any back wages.;