JUDGMENT
Ranjan Gogoi, J.
1. The challenge in the instant writ petition is against an award dated 21.2.1994 passed by the learned Labour Court at Dibrugarh in Reference Case No. 9/1988, holding the dismissal of the two workmen represented by the petitioner-Union to be justified.
2. By a Notification dated 29.4.1988 issued under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the State Government referred the following two questions for adjudication by the learned Labour Court at Dibrugarh :-
(a) Whether the management of Greenwood Tea Estate are justified In dismissing their workmen Sarvashree Rajen Kahar and Gyandas Mirdha ?
(b) If not, whether the said workmen are entitled to reinstatement or any other relief in lieu thereof?
3. On receipt of the reference, Reference Case No. 9/88 was registered and notices wore issued to both the parties to file their respective written statements in the case.
4. The case of the management, as stated in the written statement filed, is that the two workmen concerned, i.e., Shri Rajen Kahar and Shri Gyandas Mirdha, who were permanent workers of the Greenwood Tea Estate, received, under false pretexts, various sums of money payable to different persons on account of gratuity and provident fund dues on different dates. According to the management, the persons on whose behalf the payment had been received by the workmen had already received the said dues and the payments made and received by the workmen were unauthorized. The details of the person on whose behalf/in whose names, payments were received by the workmen concerned of well as the dates on which such payments were received and the amount of the payments in question were mentioned in the written statement filed by the management.
5. As the aforesaid acts of the two workmen had caused huge loss to the management, two separate charge sheets dated 9.12.1986 and 9.2.1987 were served on the workmen to which the two workmen concerned replied on 12.12.1986 and 12.2.1987 respectively. The replies submitted not being satisfactory, the management decided to hold a domestic enquiry and in the said domestic enquiry, both the workmen had participated. The enquiry officer having found the workmen to be guilty of the charges levelled, submitted his report to the management and the management, on due application of mind, had concurred with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, and there being no extenuating circumstances, thought it proper to impose on the workmen concerned/ the punishment of dismissal from service.
6. The case of the petitioner Union representing the cause of the two workmen, as stated in the written statement filed, is that the garden manager of the concerned tea estate was the Chairman of the Garden Level Provident Fund Committee and payments were made by the garden manager on due scrutiny, enquiry and verification. The two workmen concerned were illiterate workers, who have been made to suffer on account of the lapses on the part of the management. It was further asserted in the written statement filed, that the payments were made to the workmen concerned without claims being lodged in that regard and the management on its own, made the payments in question. The concerned workmen accepted the same on the bona fide belief that they were entitled to the same as the legal heirs of the Ex-employees in whose names the payments were disbursed.
7. The learned Labour Court on an elaborate consideration of the cases of the respective parties as pleaded and the evidence, oral and documentary, adduced by the parties, came to the impugned conclusion, on the reasons assigned, that the dismissal of the two workmen as made by the management was justified. Consequently, it was held that the workmen concerned would not be entitled to any relief. The answer provided by the learned Labour Court in the reference made, not having satisfied the petitioner Union, the instant writ application has been filed.
8. I have heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner Union. None has appeared on behalf of the Respondent management, though an affidavit on behalf of the said respondent has been filed. The same has been duly perused.
9. A perusal of the impugned award passed by the learned Labour Court as well as the materials available on record, would go to show that on the question raised by the petitioner Union, the learned Labour Court went into the question of the validity of the proceedings of the domestic enquiry and found the same to have been validly initiated and conducted. As the management had adduced independent evidence to justify the action of dismissal and the workmen concerned had also examined themselves in the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, the learned Labour Court took into account all such oral and documentary evidence in coming to the conclusions that have been reached.
10. A close scrutiny of the impugned award as well as the materials on record would reveal that two witnesses were examined by the management in support of its case. The enquiry officer, who conducted the domestic enquiry was examined as MW 1 and he had proved the findings of the enquiry as Exts. 7 and 13 respectively. One Baljit Singh, the manager of the tea estate in question was examined by the management as MW 2 and through the said witness the management had proved and exhibited the replies submitted by the two workmen in response to the show cause notices which were marked as Exts. 2 and 9. In the said replies submitted by the workmen, the concerned workmen had admitted receipt of the payments in question. The charge sheets served on the workmen containing the list of the names of the persons on whose behalf payments were received, were exhibited in course of the proceeding before the learned Labour Court and marked, as Exts. 1 and 8. That apart, the various ledgers, registers and payment books of the garden showing that gratuity and provident fund were paid to the 18 workers mentioned in Exts. 1 and 8, for the periods in question, were also exhibited by the management and marked as Exts. 17-36. As the said exhibits 7-36 had established that the payments on account of gratuity and provident fund had already been made to the concerned employees for the periods in question, in view of the admission contained in Exts. 2 and 9 regarding receipt of the same payments once again, the unauthorized nature of the payments received was established.
11. The two workmen, who had examined themselves before the learned Labour Court did not bring on record either any application claiming the payments in question or authorization to receive the same. The primary defence of the workmen concerned appear to be that there were no complaints about non-receipt of the payments received by the workmen on behalf of the beneficiaries and further that the Manager of the Garden being the Chairman of the Provident Fund Committee, the payments were made by the Garden Manager presumably on due verification and scrutiny.
12. From the evidence and materials on record, as noticed above, what transpires is that payment on account of Provident Fund and Gratuity to 18 workers of the Tea Estate, who had ceased to be in employment for different reasons were paid to such workmen. Thereafter the same payments were again made in their names and such payments were received by the two workmen concerned. There was a distinct procedure for payment of gratuity and provident fund dues, which required an application to be made for such payments, The claims made in such applications are to be verified and thereafter payment is to be disbursed. In the instant case, no claim application was filed and it is the Garden Manager, who made the payments in question. The above facts are capable of sustaining a finding that payment of the amount made by the Garden Manager and receipt of the same by the concerned workmen were both unauthorized and there must have been some collusion or connivance between the two parties. This is further fortified by the fact that the evidence on record has revealed that the concerned dealing clerk as well as the then Garden Manager had both left service after the incident. However, the fact that the payments, were made unauthorisedly by the Garden Manager, who is supposed to make the payments on due satisfaction and after proper verification cannot absolve the two workmen as they had no legal authority to receive the payments in question. The workmen, by their conduct and action had facilitated the illegal payments made by the Garden Manager and had caused wrongful loss to the Garden Management. The fact that no complaint was received from any of the beneficiaries with regard to the non-payment of the amounts received by the workmen would also not be conclusive of the liability of the workmen, unless, it is the case of the workmen concerned that payments though unauthorisedly received, were actually handed over to the beneficiaries. Evidence on that score should have been led by the workmen. No such evidence having been led, the inevitable conclusion that follows is that the two workmen by their illegal action in receiving the unauthorized payments had further caused illegal gain to themselves.
13. In view of the aforesaid conclusion reached, the impugned award dated 21.2.1994 would not disclose any such infirmity or error of law, which would call for interference by this Court. The writ petition, therefore, is without any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.