ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the award dated 04.06.2002 (Annex.13) passed by Labour Court, Bikaner, whereby the Labour Court came to the conclusion that removal of the workman dated 13.08.1987 was not justified and looking to his misconduct, instead of removal, the punishment was substituted by stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. It was further ordered that the workman will be entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service. Further directions were given that outstanding amount of Rs.2,739.61 alongwith 9 per cent interest would be deposited by the workman and in case the same was not deposited, the same would be recovered from his salary. The Labour Court observed that the workman would not be entitled to any salary from the date of removal to the date of the award, however, he would be entitled to salary from the date of the award.

2. It is, inter-alia, indicated in the petition that the workman, a salesman on the medical shop, operated by petitioner-Bhandar was working and during course of his employment, he committed various irregularities and on inspection it was found that medicines worth Rs.41,475.34 were short in the stock. The workman deposited only Rs.22,310.67 and as such embezzled Rs.19,164.67. A charge sheet was issued to him on 18.10.1985, which was duly served on him. He appeared before the Disciplinary Authority on 10.01.1986 and 06.02.1986 and recorded his statements, wherein he admitted that he has embezzled fund of the Bhandar and has committed breach of trust. Though he was provided opportunity to submit his explanation for not depositing the money, he didn’t submit his explanation.

3. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter appointed Enquiry Officer by order dated 26.07.1987, who initiated process of enquiry by issuing notice, which was received by the workman, however, he didn’t appear before the Enquiry Officer. Again a notice was issued, which was also received, however, again the workman didn’t appear and, therefore, exparte proceedings were initiated, wherein the evidence of management was recorded and after taking into consideration the evidence of the management, the Enquiry Officer found the charges of misappropriation proved and submitted its report to the Disciplinary Authority.

4. The Disciplinary Authority issued show cause notice dated 21.07.1987 to the workman to show cause as to why his services may not be terminated, which notice was received by the workman, however, despite receipt of the notice, no explanation was submitted, resulting in the Disciplinary Authority passing the order dated 13.08.1987, dismissing the workman.

5. The workman approached the civil court by filing a civil suit, the suit was decreed, which was challenged by way of filing appeal, wherein the District Judge, Bikaner allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit holding that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

6. The workman initiated proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘Act’), wherein a reference was made under Section 10 of the Act to the Labour Court, Bikaner vide notification dated 04.08.1995. Before the Labour Court, statement of claim was filed by the workman, to which a response was filed by the petitioner. Whereafter, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management was unfair and provided opportunity to prove the misconduct under Section 11-A of the Act.

7. On behalf of management, affidavit was filed and the workman also filed his affidavit. The witnesses were cross-examined. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that in the charge sheet issued to the workman, it was not indicated that the proceedings are being initiated under which provision and even in the order terminating the services dated 13.08.1987, no reference has been made to any provision and, therefore, as the enquiry and termination has taken place without Rules, the