| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/491337 |
| Subject | Labour and Industrial |
| Court | Allahabad High Court |
| Decided On | Sep-29-2003 |
| Case Number | Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8317 of 1998 |
| Judge | Rakesh Tiwari, J. |
| Reported in | (2003)3UPLBEC2814 |
| Acts | Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 |
| Appellant | Mehndi Hussain |
| Respondent | Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court and anr. |
| Appellant Advocate | S.A. Gilani, Adv. |
| Respondent Advocate | Vipin Sinha, ; Navin Sinha, Advs. and ; S.C. |
| Disposition | Petition dismissed |
| Cases Referred | M.P. State Electricity Board v. Jarina Bee |
Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the award dated 17.3.1997 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Kanpur Nagar in Industrial Dispute No. 170 of 1984 (hereinafter called as C.G.I.T.). The petitioner has prayed that compensation of Rs. Ten thousand awarded to him in lieu of reinstatement of service be enhanced to Rs. 2.5 lacs.
3. The petitioner, who is an Ex-military person was appointed as Armed Guard on 15.1.1970 on temporary basis at Allahabad Branch of the State Bank of India and subsequently he was selected for the post of Armed Guard and was appointed on substantive basis on probation in the same branch on 9.7.1971. The contention of the petitioner is that he was charged of having submitted a fabricated and forged certificate on 9.7.1971 allegedly issued by the Principal, R.R.K. Secondary School, Dalipur,' District Pratapgarh. His Services were terminated w.e.f. 5.2.1972 on this ground. An FIR was lodged under Sections 467, 468, 420 and 471 IPC against the petitioner. He was charge-sheeted and thereafter acquitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad vide his judgment and order dated 27.3,1979. After acquittal the petitioner approached the Bank for his reinstatement and he was informed that his services were terminated w.e.f., 22.2.1972.
4. The petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute which was referred by the Central Government of India vide its order dated 28.5.1982 for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur where it was registered as Adjudication Case No. 170 of 1984. The Tribunal vide its award dated 22.11.1984 upheld the termination of the workman. The said award was challenged by the workman by means of Writ Petition No. 1493 of 1985 which was finally decided vide judgment dated 2nd May, 1994. The matter was remanded back to the C.G.I.T. After remand the management filed an additional written statement stating therein that the bank had lost confidence in the workman.
5. Thereafter the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 17.3.97 came to the conclusion that there was no proof that school leaving certificate was forged by workman but as the matter was very old and the concerned workman had also attained the age of the superannuation, a sum Rs. 10,000/- was awarded by way of compensation of lieu of reinstatement.
6. The compensation of Rs. Ten thousand awarded by the Tribunal as compensation has also been paid to the workman and the award has been implemented. He had already put in 15 years of service in the army and was engaged by the bank under welfare scheme of the army for its discharged employees.
7. From perusal of record it appears that the petitioner had acknowledged that the fact his School Leaving Certificate was forged. This acknowledgement has been made in letter dated 20.12.71 and has been appended as Annexure-CA-4 to the counter affidavit. The relevant extract of letter dated 20th December, 1971 is as under:
'(2) In this connection, I may add and I do not know about its genuineness as the signature of the Head Master of the institution was neither made before me on the certificate nor I yet recognize the specimen of his signature. I submitted the certificate to the Bank in full confidence of its being genuine and had no interim to defraud the bank. My intention had never been to obtain any appointment in the bank by way of fraudulent methods. I am victim of my own foolishness that 1 believed the school teacher under the influence of the old established traditions of teachers of the schools, who it appears to had misguided me and sent me a forged certificate, for the reasons best known to him.'
It appears that the School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner was a fabricated one either by the petitioner himself or by the teacher. His services were terminated before confirmation of his service. He would be deemed to have continued on probation.
8. In view of the admission of the petitioner himself that he had in his own foolishness submitted a forged School leaving certificate no relief can be granted. The compensation of Rs. 10,000/- awarded to him on the basis of wages in 1972 is sufficient. The question of back wages or compensation lies in the discretion of Labour Court and this Court has -no right to interfere as held by Supreme Court in case of M.P. State Electricity Board v. Jarina Bee (Smt), (2003) 6 SCC 141.
9. For these reason it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.