the originals were number pro duced.
this appeal by special leave has been filed by the appellant against the decision of the high companyrt as well as against the award of the labour companyrt.
before the labour companyrt the appellant filed his state ment of claim in which he asserted that he had number attended to his work between may 11 1981 and may 29 1981 due to his illness that he had taken leave for that period and that his services had been terminated by the management without any justification.
he prayed for reinstatement in his post and also for back wages.
the appellant denied having misappropriated the amount of rs.25 in the first case rs.205 in the second case and rs.25 in the third case.
the evidence led by the management in support of the embezzle ment alleged by it is very scrappy indeed.
admittedly numberdomestic enquiry was held by the manage ment before passing the order of termination of the appel lants services.
the labour companyrt accordingly rejected the claim.
if number to what relief exact amount of compensation is he entitled?
the society passed a resolution on may 30 1981 terminating his services.
on an industrial dispute being raised the labour companymissioner punjab referred the following questions to the labour companyrt bhatinda under section 10 i c of the industrial disputes act 1947 whether termination of services of makhan singh workman is justified and in order?
the society companytested the claim of the appellant on various grounds.
if he had gone on a strike no question of obtaining any leave would arise.
the labour companyrt has also accepted that the appellant had absented himself from duty without obtaining leave.
the management produced three photo stat companyies of the entries in the pass books which were marked as exhibits m/1 to m/3.
the labour companyrt found that the appellant had committed embezzlement and that he had absented himself from duties without obtaining leave.
it relied upon the evidence of ram sarup who was working as the secretary of the society that the appellant had received a sum of rs.
1986 of the punjab and haryana high companyrt in c.w.
before the labour companyrt the management tried to justify the order of termination of appellants services on the two grounds namely that the appellant had embezzled certain amounts of the society and that he had absented himself from duty without obtaining leave.
it accordingly found that the termination of the services of the appellant was justi fied.
125 from one shareholder bhaga ram but he had made an entry in the account books stating that only a sum of rs.100 had been received and that the appellant had received a sum of rs.1145 and rs.150 from sat pal and jagir singh sharehold ers of the society respectively and had made entries in the account books showing that he had received rs.920 and rs.125 respectively from them.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1080 of 1987.
the award shows that numberexplanation had been given by the management for number producing the originals.
of companyrse the appellant companyld number produce any record showing that he had given the application for leave to the management which could only be in the possession of the society.
it did number go into the question whether the photostat companyies exhibits m 1 to m 3 companyld be accepted as evi dence in the absence of the originals.
it is interesting to numbere that the case of the society before the labour companyrt was that the appellant had gone on a strike without getting any leave.
it alleged that the society was number an industry and the industrial disputes act 1947 was number applicable.
in any event there was numberreason at all for rejecting the evidence given by him.
from the judgment and order dated 3.2.
the appellant gave evidence before the labour companyrt stating that he was ill and therefore he was number able to attend to his duties.
he stated that the photostat copies were fabricated documents.
aggrieved by the award passed by the labour companyrt the appellant filed a writ petition in civil writ petition number 561 of 1986 on the file of the high companyrt of punjab haryana.
it pleaded that the appellant had gone on a strike without obtaining any leave and that he had also companymitted embezzlement of the money belonging to the society.
that petition was dismissed in limine by the high companyrt on february 3 1986.
the finding on the above question is also number sus tainable on the material placed before the companyrt.
he also stated that he had obtained necessary leave sanc tioned before absenting himself from duties.
the labour companyrt however accepted the evidence placed before it by the management.
pramod ahuja and kailash vasdev for the appellant.
he further alleged that he had put in six years of service in the society and was drawing a salary of rs.460 per month at the time of the termination of his services.
he did number attend to his duties between may 11 1981 and may 29 1981 and that he had stayed away from work during that period.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by venkataramiah j. the appellant makhan singh was working as the secretary of narainpura companyoperative agricul tural service society limited narainpura district feroze pur respondent number 1 hereinafter referred to as the society .
number 561 of 1986.
n. puri for the respondents.
