- (1.) D. N. Dhingra, petitioner, has filed this petition seeking a direction to respondent 1, Union of India, for referring the industrial dispute raised by him for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a steno-typist on 28 July 1977, in Punjab National Bank. He was promoted to the post of special assistant on 14 August 1984, and was posted at Nehla, District Hissar. He was again promoted as an Accountant on 27 May 1985, and was posted at the same branch. While he was posted as special assistant at Nehla, he was charged with certain acts of omission and commission. The following five charges were levelled against him: D. N. Dhingra vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (23. 08. 1989 -PHHC) Page 2 of 5 (1) Abused his official position and credited his own account by debiting the accounts of bank's customers and bank employees without their consent or authority. (2) Misutilised the consumer loan of Rs. 5,900 raised for purchase of furniture. (3) Misutilised the bank's funds for his own benefit by overdrawing his C/a (O/d) account on several occasions. (4) Misappropriated the amount entrusted to him by the customers for depositing in their accounts. (5) Misutilised his official position and withdrew the amount from customer's account with forged signatures. '' An enquiry officer was appointed. The petitioner was exonerated of charges (2), (4) and (5) and regarding charge (1), the enquiry officer 2 held it to be partly proved whereas charge (3) was held to be proved. Consequently, he was removed from service on 16 June 1986. His appeal against his removal was dismissed on 18 August 1986. The review petition was also dismissed on 20 February 1987.
(3.) AS he had exhausted all the remedies provided under the rules, he raised an industrial dispute against his removal from service under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act ). The Assistant Labour commissioner (Central), respondent 3, made efforts of conciliation, but it failed and he communicated his failure report under Section 12 (4) of the Act to the Union of India, respondent 1, vide -his letter, dated 1 February 1988. Respondent 1, the Union of India, rejected the application of the petitioner for making a reference of the dispute vide its order, dated 10 August 1988. Not satisfied with the rejection order, the petitioner submitted an application for reconsideration of the order which was rejected by respondent I on 13 October 1988.;