Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shingara Singh vs P.O, Industrial Tribunal, … on 22 April, 2021CWP No.27516 of 2018 (O&M) and other connected cases 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.27516 of 2018(O&M)
DECIDED ON : 22.04.2021
Shingara Singh …Petitioner
versus
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar and Ors.
…Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH AGNIHOTRI
Present: Mr. Dheeraj Mahajan, Advocate
for the petitioner (s) in
CWP Nos.27516, 27783, 27791
and 27525 of 2018 and for the respondent(s)
in 23270, 22057, 23257 and 23260 of 2018.
Ms. Paramjit Kaur Deol, Advocate
for the petitioner(s)
in CWP Nos.22057, 23257, 23260,
and 23270 of 2018 and for the respondents in
CWP No. 27783, 27525, 27791 of 2018.
(The aforesaid presence is being recorded through video
conferencing since the proceedings are being conducted
in virtual court due to COVID-19)
GIRISH AGNIHOTRI, J.
Since common question of law and facts are involved in all the
eight writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos.27516, 22057, 23260, 27783, 27791,
27525, 23257 and 23270 of 2018, the same are being taken up together and
are disposed of by this common order.
For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CWP
No.27516 of 2018 titled as ‘Shingara Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial
Tribunal, Amritsar and Ors.’.
Petitioner-Shingara Singh, stated to be aged 64 years, has filed
For Subsequent orders see CWP-3347-2018, CM-6768-CWP-2021, — and 1 more.
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 10:51:50 :::
CWP No.27516 of 2018 (O&M) and other connected cases 2
the present writ petition inter alia with a prayer for quashing the impugned
award dated 08.11.2017 partly to the extent of not granting the relief of
reinstatement in service and also for quashing of the impugned order dated
01.07.2013 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.3 and also to direct the
respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service
and full back wages.
Learned counsel for the petitioner based on pleadings in the
petition, submits that petitioner was initially appointed in the respondent
Bank (The Gurdaspur Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Gurdaspur) on
16.11.1972 to the post of Peon. Vide memo dated 29.10.2010, the petitioner
was charge-sheeted. On 28.06.2011, the petitioner was reinstated pending
inquiry. On 10.01.2012, the enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry
officer. It was so recorded in the enquiry report that petitioner cannot be
directly held responsible for the embezzlement. It is the pleaded case of the
petitioner that the petitioner was never charged for destroying the record as
the same was in possession of the Branch Manager. On 16.10.2012, show
cause notice was issued to the petitioner proposing punishment of dismissal
from service. On 08.11.2012, the petitioner submitted reply to the same.
Vide order dated 01.07.2013, the petitioner was dismissed from service.
Thereafter, on 16.07.2013, the petitioner served a demand notice under
Section 2 (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act and thereafter statement of
claim was filed on 25.09.2013. On 08.11.2017, the reference to the Labour
Court was answered partly in favour of the workman. The Industrial
Tribunal in its award, ordered that the workman be treated as compulsory
retired from the date of order of dismissal dated 01.07.2013. A further
direction was given to the respondent-Bank to make payment of entire
For Subsequent orders see CWP-3347-2018, CM-6768-CWP-2021, — and 1 more.
2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 10:51:50 :::
CWP No.27516 of 2018 (O&M) and other connected cases 3
retiral benefits, which are admissible to him as per rules, within three
months of passing of the award. Relevant extract of the concluding paras of
the award are reproduced hereunder:-
’21.As already discussed above, the enquiry officer has
come to conclusion at page no.133 of the enquiry report that
charge of mis-appropriation is not proved against the
workman, but he has destroyed the record. On the basis of
this, the dismissal order dated 01.07.2013 was passed. This
dismissal order is harsh as the main charge against the
delinquent is not proved. As per section 11-A of I.D. Act, the
Tribunal can inflict the lesser punishment in lieu of discharge
or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require and
the Tribunal shall rely on the material on the record and shall
not take any fresh evidence in relation to this matter. The
workman has put on long service with managements and
dismissal order shall take away his right of retiral benefits.
Keeping in view inquiry report Ex. R8 on file and keeping in
view that main charge of mis-appropriate is not proved, as
per section 11-A of I.D. Act order of dismissal is set aside. In
view of the above discussion, it would be appropriate and
justified that punishment of workman is converted to that of
compulsory retirement at the most with all his retiral benefits,
which are admissible to him as per service rules of
managements, intact from the date of dismissal. All those
benefits will be paid to him and treat him to be compulsory
retired and all the benefits shall be paid within three months
of passing of this award. Accordingly, issues no.1 to 4 are
held partly in favour of workman and against the
managements.
Relief.
22.In view of my discussion, made on above issues,
reference is answered partly in favour of workman and
workman be treated as compulsory retired from the date of
order of dismissal i.e.01.07.2013. All his retiral benefits be
kept intact from the date of removal i.e. 01.07.2013 and
department is directed to make him payment of entire retiral
For Subsequent orders see CWP-3347-2018, CM-6768-CWP-2021, — and 1 more.
3 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 10:51:50 :::
CWP No.27516 of 2018 (O&M) and other connected cases 4
benefits, which are admissible to him as per rules, within
three months of passing of this award. Reader of this Tribunal
is directed to forward two copies of this Award to Assistant
Labour Commissioner/Labour-cum-Reconciliation Officer,
Gurdaspur, as required under Section 15 of the I.D.Act read
with Notification No.S.O.66/C.A.14/1947/S.17/2008
dt.1.10.2008. File be consigned to record room.
November 8, 2017. S.D.
(Jasjit Singh Bhinder)
Addl. District & Sessions Judge,
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal,
Amritsar.’
Learned counsel for the petitioner has then made reference to
two additional facts. It is firstly, submitted that on the same/similar issue,
FIR No.34 dated 05.05.2011 (Ex.R6) was registered on the basis of
complaint (Ex. R5). It is the specific case of the petitioner that he was found
innocent by the Police which decision was never challenged by the
respondent Bank. Secondly, learned counsel submits that the respondent
Bank had also filed false arbitration case against the petitioner for recovery
despite the fact that there was no evidence against the petitioner. Vide letter
dated 03.07.2017, the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Hoshiarpur
(Annexure P-10) quashed the order/decision of the authorities imposing
recovery on the petitioner. Common order dated 03.07.2017, was passed in
Appeal Case No.37 of 2017 filed by the petitioner as well as Darshan Singh
(in CWP No.27783 of 2018) and Dalbir Singh (in CWP No.27525 of 2018).
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that qua petitioner
Manjit Singh (in CWP No.27791 of 2018) the arbitration proceedings were
though initiated by the Bank with same/similar allegations but the
Competent Authority did not proceed further with the matter and the
proceedings were dropped qua petitioner Manjit Singh as the Bank failed to
For Subsequent orders see CWP-3347-2018, CM-6768-CWP-2021, — and 1 more.
4 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 10:51:50 :::
CWP No.27516 of 2018 (O&M) and other connected cases 5
produce the record before the Arbitral Tribunal.
Records of the case show that on 17.01.2019 notice of motion
was issued in the present writ petition. In response thereto, respondent
No.3-Bank filed a written statement wherein it has been inter alia contended
that the Board of Directors has unanimously decided to issue show cause
notice for imposing punishment of dismissal upon the petitioner. It has
further been submitted that enquiry in accordance with law has been
conducted against the employee. He has been given due opportunity to put
forth his defence. After following regular procedure, the punishment
proposed was imposed on the petitioner.
I have given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and
circumstances pleaded by the petitioner in his writ petition as also by the
respondents in their written statement. I have also carefully gone through
the detailed award passed by the Industrial Tribunal.
It has come on record that other three workmen namely, Manjit
Singh, Dalbir Singh and Darshan Singh also faced arbitration proceedings
but the same were decided in favour of the workmen. These three workmen
were acquitted by the trial Court in case FIR No.34 dated 5.5.2011, vide
judgment dated 05.11.2018 and the said judgment of acquittal dated
05.11.2018 has attained finality. This Court also notices another fact that the
award passed by the Industrial Tribunal is dated 08.11.2017 whereas the
writ petitions both by the workmen as well as the Bank have been filed after
approximately one year.
At this stage, it would also be relevant to record that in the year
2018, workmen/petitioners, namely, Shingara Singh, Manjit Singh, Dalbir
Singh and Darshan Singh in respective writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos.27516,
For Subsequent orders see CWP-3347-2018, CM-6768-CWP-2021, — and 1 more.
5 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 10:51:50 :::
CWP No.27516 of 2018 (O&M) and other connected cases 6
27791, 27525 and 27783 of 2018, had attained the age of 64, 61, 62 and 55
years respectively (i.e. on date of filing the writ petition).
In the cross writ petition bearing CWP No.23257 of 2018 titled
as ‘The Gurdaspur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd Vs. Shingara Singh and
Anr.’, it has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner(s) by making
reference to pleadings in the petition inter alia that acting upon preliminary
report presented by Sh. R.K. Malhotra, domestic enquiry was conducted by
Sh. Santokh Raj, Manager. In the enquiry report, reference to the report of
M/s Data Soft Computers and the preliminary enquiry report has been made.
It was observed that the bank records have been deliberately misplaced by
Shingara Singh in connivance with other bank officials. It is submitted that
the Board of Directors on consideration of the enquiry report, had decided
to issue show cause notice for punishment of dismissal to Shingara Singh.
In para 17 of the writ petition, filed by Bank, it has been inter alia contended
that the workman was granted every opportunity to defend and present his
case to the highest level i.e. the Board of Directors of the Bank. It is
submitted that the petitioner-Bank had followed the entire process, and
thereof imposed the punishment of dismissal upon the workman.
In the award dated 08.11.2017, learned Tribunal has dealt with
all the facts and grounds taken by the petitioner as well as the respondent
Bank. After vividly noticing all the facts, the Labour Court has inter alia
observed in its award that the petitioner was exonerated by the police during
investigation. He was accordingly, reinstated pending enquiry vide order
dated 28.06.2011. Thereafter, the complete procedure followed by the Bank
in holding the enquiry has also been briefly discussed. The Industrial
Tribunal has then come to the conclusion that in the departmental enquiry
For Subsequent orders see CWP-3347-2018, CM-6768-CWP-2021, — and 1 more.
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 10:51:50 :::
CWP No.27516 of 2018 (O&M) and other connected cases 7
report, the charges of mis-appropriation are not proved, however,
allegations regarding destroying the record have been allegedly proved. It
has been observed that dismissal order is harsh as the main charge against
the delinquent is not proved. The Tribunal has thus proceeded under Section
11 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 keeping in view the fact that the
petitioner herein and other co-workmen had put in sufficiently long service
with the Management and the dismissal order shall take away their right of
retiral benefits. It was deemed appropriate and justified that punishment of
dismissal is converted to that of compulsory retirement. The Tribunal also
noticed that one Sh. Dwarka Dass, Branch Manager, was found guilty for
not maintaining and producing the relevant record. He was accordingly,
proceeded against by the Bank and dismissed from service. Importantly for
same/similar allegations, in the FIR dated 05.05.2011 and in other
connected matters during investigation and trial, the workmen were found
not guilty and were found innocent/acquitted. It is also a matter of fact that
the arbitration proceedings initiated by the Bank were also either dropped or
decided in favour of workmen. All the workmen including petitioner have
rendered sufficiently long service with the Bank. The petitioner in the
present case has rendered 41 years of service on the date of passing the
dismissal order dated 01.07.2013.
Resultantly, for the facts and reasons noticed above, the writ
petitions filed by the workmen as well as by the Bank are dismissed with no
order as to costs and the order/award dated 08.11.2017 passed by the
Industrial Tribunal is upheld.
Before concluding, it is deemed appropriate to record that in
the writ petitions filed by the respondent-Bank e.g. in CWP No.23257 of
For Subsequent orders see CWP-3347-2018, CM-6768-CWP-2021, — and 1 more.
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 10:51:50 :::
CWP No.27516 of 2018 (O&M) and other connected cases 8
2018 application i.e. CM No.13347-CWP-2020 was filed inter alia with a
prayer to stay the executing proceedings arising out of the impugned award
herein dated 08.11.2017. This Court vide order dated 09.12.2020 passed in
the applications filed by the respondent-Bank, had issued directions to the
Bank to deposit the amount so calculated in the form of an FDR, with the
Registrar General of this Court.
Accordingly, as a consequence to the above, the amount so
deposited by the Bank in the form of an FDR with the Registrar General of
this Court be released in favour of workmen in respective cases.
Ordered accordingly.
(GIRISH AGNIHOTRI)
April 22, 2021 JUDGE
jyoti3
Whether speaking/reasoned : YES/NO
Whether reportable : YES/NO
For Subsequent orders see CWP-3347-2018, CM-6768-CWP-2021, — and 1 more.
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 10:51:50 :::
Comments