Rajesh Bindal J.
The petitioner-management (for short, ‘the management’), being aggrieved against the award dated 9.9.2010, passed by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) has filed the present petition.
Learned counsel for the management submitted that it is a case in which respondent No. 2-workman (for short, ‘the workman’) was working as Conductor. He was charged for absence from duty from 7.2.1997 to 9.3.1997 and temporary embezzlement of Rs. 18,991/- on account of retention of unsold tickets. The enquiry was held and as a result thereof, his services were terminated. Though the finding regarding grant of opportunity to the workman during the course of enquiry has not been upset, but still he has been directed to be reinstated back in service. Learned counsel further submitted that considering the conduct of the workman, he is not entitled to the relief, which has been granted to him by the Tribunal.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the workman submitted that the allegations levelled against the workman were totally false. As his wife was seriously ill, he had sent application for leave, which was not sanctioned. When his wife was cured, he joined the duty. The unsold tickets were deposited by him. The punishment was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. He further submitted that the workman has been taken back in service on 17.12.2011 The Tribunal has merely granted relief of reinstatement. He will have no right of increments or promotion. Even back wages have also been denied.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, no interference is called for in the present petition at this stage, considering the fact that services of the workman were terminated on 7.4.1999 The allegation is that he remained absent from duty for about one month and temporarily embezzled the amount on account of retention of unsold tickets, which tickets were later on deposited. For 11 years, he remained out of service for his alleged mis-conduct. Though the Tribunal directed for his reinstatement, but without other benefits. The aforesaid punishment is sufficient in the case in hand.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.