In explanation he said that it had been given to him by Ms mother.
The manager ordered the chief cashier to close the cash in the hands of the respondent and to check the amount in his hand with the books.
It may be added that after this application was made, the banks case is that it actually discharged the respondent on January 15, 1962.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated September 20, 1962, of the Central Government Labour Court at Dhanbad in Application No.
Thereafter the respondent was told what his parents had said and asked what he had to say further.
4,000/ and number Rs.
Thereafter an enquiry was companyducted against the respondent.
Shankerlal went back to his shop and verified that he had taken 41 numberes instead of 40 and had thus handed over one numbere of Rs.
100/ extra to the respondent, in companynection with the telegraphic transfer.
The manager again sent the same persons to make enquiries from Mondal but it was found that there was numberperson of the name of Mondal in that building.
Janardan Sharma, for the respondent.
The respondent then came out with another story that the numbere was given to him by a tenant of the building in which he lived.
14 of 1947, for approval of the action proposed to be taken against the respondent.
The manager immediately took steps to verify this statement and deputed the chief cashier along with another person to the respondents house to make necessary inquiries.
The application under s. 33 2 b finally came up for disposal before the labour companyrt.
August 14, 1963.
516 of 1963.
But at the house of the respondent both his mother and father said that they had number given a hundred rupee numbere to the respondent.
The respondent however refused to return the numberes saying that the amount given to him was Rs.
4,100/ .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The chief cashier found on checking that there was one numbere of Rs.
The respondent was also suspended from the banks service.
4,000/ from Calcutta to Sujangarh and handed over currency numberes of Rs.
As the respondent was companynting the numberes, Shankerlal remembered that he had given 41 numberes instead of 40 to the respondent and requested him to return the bundle of numberes for verification.
He gave out the name of the tenant as Mondal.
The bank therefore decided to take disciplinary proceedings against the respondent and handed over a charge sheet to him.
Thereafter according to the rules prevalent in the bank the respondent was given numberice to show cause why he should number be discharged.
100/each to the respondent.
The present appeal by special leave is against this order of the labour companyrt.
He then came back to the bank and companyplained to the Manager about this.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO J. This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the Central Government Labour Court at Dhanbad.
The enquiry officer came to the companyclusion that the two charges framed against the respondent had been proved and recommended after taking into companysideration the past service and companyduct of the respondent that he should be discharged from the service of the bank.
The respondent was in the service of the appellant banks branch at Calcutta and worked as an assistant cashier.
His expla nation was taken into account and thereafter the bank decided to discharge him.
L. C. 113 of 1962.
100/ extra with the respondent.
On June 17, 1961, one Shankerlal applied for telegraphic transfer of Rs.
Sen, I. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for die appellant.
The manager asked the respondent to hand over the extra numbere but the respondent refused to do so saying that it belonged to him.
