S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) CHALLENGING award dated 28.03.2014 in Reference Case No. 55 of 2009 whereby, the Tribunal has directed reinstatement of the respondent -Workman with 75% back wages, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that, the workman namely, Jwala Prasad was appointed as Sub -staff of the petitioner -Punjab National Bank on 16.07.1973. The concerned workman was promoted as Head Cashier in the year, 2004. On 29.07.2006, the concerned workman was placed under suspension on the allegation of shortage of cash and a Charge Memo was issued to him on 27.02.2007. In the domestic enquiry, the concerned workman was afforded full opportunity to defend himself. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report dated 19.02.2008, a copy of which was furnished to the delinquent employee on 12.03.2008. After considering the representation of the workman to the findings in the enquiry report, a show -cause notice dated 08.05.2008 for proposed punishment was issued to the workman. Finally, the Disciplinary Authority passed order of punishment dated 10.07.2008 discharging the workman from service with superannuation benefit and without disqualification from future employment. The workman preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority which has been dismissed vide order dated 10.11.2008, a copy of which was communicated to the workman by letter dated 18.12.2008. The workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal and the same was registered as Reference Case No. 55 of 2009. The Tribunal passed final award dated 28.03.2014 directing the management to reinstate the workman with 75 % back wages. Challenging the same, the petitioner -Management of Punjab National Bank has approached this Court by preferring the present writ petition. After the hearing in Reference Case No. 55 of 2009 was concluded the concerned workman died leaving behind his wife and son. A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents who are the legal heirs and successors of the concerned workman. It is stated that the charge against the workman was not proved. The workman deposited the short -fall in cash on the same day and therefore, no charge for short -fall of Rs. 8,000/ - could have been pressed against the workman. In so far as, the charge of submitting forged T.A. Bill is concerned, it has not been proved. After detecting short -fall in cash, the workman lodged a case against one Enamul Tirue who was working as cleaner in the cash cabin and strong room. The said Enamul Tirue was caught red -handed in one of such incidents. Though a complaint was made by the workman against the said Enamul Tirue however, no enquiry was made on the complaint made by the workman.
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.;