Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma vs The Delhi Consumers Cooperative … on 31 March, 2016

1. The present petitioner, i.e., Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma

(hereinafter referred to as the „petitioner-workman‟) has preferred the

present Writ Petition under Article 226 and Article 227 of the

Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned Award dated

01.10.2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. V,

W.P. (C) No. 6771/2004 Page 1 of 15
Karkardooma, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the „learned Labour

Court/Industrial Adjudicator‟) in I.D. No. 320/1991.

2. The brief facts stated are that the petitioner-workman, i.e., Shri

Vinod Kumar Sharma, was working under the respondent-

management, i.e., Delhi Consumers Cooperative Wholesale Store Ltd.,

w.e.f. 05.07.1985 as a senior salesman, posted at liquor shop at I.N.A

market, New Delhi and was assisted by other employees, i.e., Shri

Dalip Singh, Shri Kamleshwar, Shri Sunil Bhagat and Shri Nam Singh

(helper). Shri J.K. Kaushik was the Manager at the shop. On

09.06.1989, while the petitioner-workman was on duty at the shop,

Shri J.K. Kaushik found that the petitioner-workman gave a case of

whiskey to one person and after receiving the amount, the petitioner-

workman kept the same in his pocket instead of depositing the same in

the cash box. Shri J.K. Kaushik further made inquiries from the

petitioner-workman and found that the petitioner-workman had also

swindled an amount of Rs. 5000/-. Apart from the theft committed by

the petitioner-workman in respect of cash, he was also found

unauthorisedly selling crates of whiskey. Thereafter, being caught red

handed by Shri J.K. Kaushik, the petitioner-workman admitted his

W.P. (C) No. 6771/2004 Page 2 of 15
guilt about the theft of cash and unauthorized sale of whiskey by letter,

i.e., Ex. MW1/7. The petitioner-workman was issued with a charge-

sheet dated 11.08.1989. Thereafter, an inquiry was conducted wherein

the inquiry officer, i.e., Shri Sunil Malhotra, found the petitioner-

workman to be guilty of the charge. Consequently, the petitioner-

workman was ordered by respondent-management to explain why

suitable action should not be taken against him and after going through

the reply and thoughtful consideration, the petitioner-workman was

dismissed from service vide order No. DCCWS/ADM/Estt./90/1043-

51 dated 07.09.1990. The petitioner-workman thereafter proceeded

against his dismissal order by raising an Industrial Dispute before the

conciliation officer but since no conciliation was effected, the matter

was referred to the learned Industrial Adjudicator vide notification No.

F.24(2310)/91-Lab./26729-34 dated 26.09.1991 on the following term

of reference:-

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply