B.R.ARORA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the judgment dated October 31, 1981, passed by the Authority under the shops and Commercial Establishment Act, by which the learned Authority maintained the order dated November 15, 1978, passed by the Chairman, Mewar Textile Mills Staff Cooperative Consumers' Stores, Bhilwara, terminating the services of the petitioner and directed the defendant to make payment of Rs. 800/ - as compensation to the petitioner.
(2.) PETITIONER was working as Helper to the Salesman at M.T.M. Staff Consumers Cooperative Stores, Bhilwara. Some reports of embezzlement were received against one Jagdish Chand. An enquiry against him was held. During the course of the enquiry, it came to the notice of the defendant that the petitioner was knowing regarding the embezzlement made by Jagdish Chandra, but knowingly he did not disclose it to the Authorities and, therefore, a notice (Annexure. 1) was issued to the petitioner on September 19, 1978, to show cause why action may not be taken against him. He filed reply. The reply sent by the petitioner was considered by the Chairman, but it was not found convincing and, therefore, an enquiry was held against the petitioner, also, and after holding the enquiry, the petitioner's services were terminated by the Chairman vide its order dated November 15, 1978 (Annexure.5). The petitioner was, also, held guilty for embezzlement of a sum of Rs. 20,141.40p. and the liability of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 6713.68, which amount was recovered from the petitioner. Dissatisfied with the order dated November 15, 1978, passed by the Chairman (Armexure. 5) dismissing the petitioner's services, the petitioner made a complaint before the Authority under the Shop and Commercial Establishment Act, Bhilwara. The notice of this complaint/application was given to the defendant and they filed reply and contested the complaint. Before the Authority, the petitioner examined himself. The defendant, also, examined Mr. Ram Prasad the Chairman, M.T.M. Staff Consumers Cooperative Stores, Bhilwara and, also, placed on record several documents including the proceedings of the enquiry conducted against the petitioner, as well as the relevant documents including the two reports of the Special Auditor, Cooperative Societies, Bhilwara, dated 18.8.80 and 31.8.81, which were given by the Special Auditor after holding detailed enquiry, in which the petitioner was found guilty for embezzlement. The learned Authority, after considering the evidence produced by both the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was found guilty for embezzlement and has lost the confidence of his employer and, therefore, it will not be proper to order for his reinstatement, but since the dismissal has been made without following the procedure provided under the law, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs. 800/ - as compensation, which should be paid to him by the defendants within fifteen days, Dissatisfied with the judgment dated October 31, 1981, passed by the Authority, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no proper enquiry was made against the petitioner and even the charge -sheet was not served. He has further submitted that there is no direct evidence against the petitioner connecting him with the charges and no charge stands proved against him. It is, also, contended that before passing any order terminating the services of the petitioner, the petitioner was not supplied with the copy of the enquiry report and, therefore, the order of dismissal deserves to be quashed and set -aside. It is, also, contended that the documents, on which reliance has been placed before this Court, were not produced by the defendant before the Authority and, therefore, they cannot be taken en record. Lastly, it is contended that the provident fund and the gratuity payable to the petitioner, have been forfeited by the defendant, which should be restored to him. The learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the Authority concerned, A preliminary objection was, also, taken by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the application under Section 28 -A of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act was not even maintainable before the learned Authority and, therefore, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.;