SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR,J. - (1.) SEEKING quashing of order dated 31.03.2005 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in B.S. Case No. 2 of 1994 whereby the petitioner's challenge to the order of discharge from service dated 24.02.1994 has been rejected, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner joined as Typist¬cum -Assistant on 23.10.1979 and in the year 1986 he was promoted as Store¬Keeper. The petitioner was served a charge¬ memo dated 25/27.01.1994 on the allegation that while working in T.S.R.D.S. Central Stores during the month of September to November, 1993, he misappropriated medicines worth over Rs. 62,000/¬ by prefixing digit before the number entered into the requisition form and thereby, has inflated the figures in certain Materials Requisition Forms. It was further alleged that the petitioner faked the initials of one Mr. C. Pramanik in the Materials Requisition Forms and the ledger to avoid detection. The petitioner was asked to submit his explanation which he submitted on 28.01.1994 however, an enquiry was ordered against the petitioner into the charges contained in the charge¬sheet dated 25/27.01.1994. It is the case of the petitioner that during the enquiry the petitioner was not afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The documents on which the management relied were not supplied to the petitioner. The entire enquiry was conducted and completed within two days and therefore, the entire enquiry was vitiated. The enquiry report was submitted on 09.02.1994 and an order of discharge from service was passed on 24.02.1994. The complainant/petitioner moved the Labour Court under Section 26(2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953. The learned Labour Court dismissed the case by order dated 31.03.2005 and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. A counter¬affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2 stating that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. Justifying the impugned order dated 31.03.2005, it has been stated that this is not a case which requires interference by this Court.
(3.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.;