- (1.) This petition seeks quashing of award dated 3.8.2004, Annexure P.1. Case of the petitioner -management is that respondent No. 1 -workman was appointed as a Salesman in 1983. Complaints of embezzlement were received against him, which led to his suspension vide order dated 19.12.1995. He admitted the charge in his letters dated 19.9.1996 and 30.11.1995, Annexures P. 18 and P. 19 respectively. He was given charge sheet dated 2.9.1996, Annexure P.20 but he refused to accept the same. Accordingly, order dated 5.10.1996, Annexure P.22 was passed against him, after recording a finding of misappropriation and absence from duty on the basis of record available with the petitioner -Society including the physical inspection done by the Inspector which led to suspension, deposit of the amounts by the workman and passing of the award against him. He preferred an appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 25.3.1997, Annexure P.23 affirming the finding of misappropriation. He then filed a petition to the Registrar under Sec. 27 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 without disclosing that his appeal had already been dismissed. This representation was accepted by the Deputy Registrar vide order dated 31.3.1998. The petitioner Society vide letter dated 29.6.1998, Annexure P.24, sought clarification and the Deputy Registrar vide letter dated 18.8.1998, Annexure P.25, directed that the order of the Registrar be carried out. It has been further stated that two awards dated 30.9.1996, Annexures P. 6 and P. 7 were also passed against the workman, wherein it was held that the workman had misappropriated the stocks of the petitioner - Cooperative Society. Recovery proceedings were also taken against the workman vide orders dated Annexure P.8 dated 10.2.1999 and Annexure P.9, P.10 and P.11 dated 25.12.2000. The workman also filed a suit which was dismissed as not maintainable on 10.1.2004, Annexure P.13, against which appeal was dismissed vide Annexure P.14 dated 14.8.2004.
(2.) The workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication on 31.10.1998.
(3.) The management contested the claim of the workman by pointing out that the workman had embezzled a huge amount of the Cooperative Society for which charge sheet was sent to him which he refused to accept and on the basis of record including awards holding the petitioner responsible for embezzlement, he was dismissed from service which order was upheld in appeal.;