“(2). The whole matter appears to have cropped up as a reference was initiated framing an issue as to whether the Bharatpur Central Co-operative Bank could dismiss the workman Shri Tara Singh by order dated 24.2.82 and whether the same was legal and valid and in case it was illegal, what relief or reliefs could be granted to him while dealing with this reference, the facts of the case of respondent-workman were related wherein it transpired that Shri Tara Singh was functioning as a Branch Manager of the Bharatpur Central Cooperative Bank which is essentially a post equal to Lower Division Clerk and merely for the sake of the nomenclature it is termed as Bank Manager. One of the functions of the respondent-workman was to receive the deposits of money from the customers and it is alleged that in course of discharge of this duty, the respondent Shri Tara Singh although realised Rs. 900 in small denomination of 200 and 100 etc. he did not deposit the same in the Bank account and thus misappropriated it. It was further alleged that from 1978 to 1979 while he was functioning as Manager he sold off Bank's form of a denomination of Rs. 100 & paisa 95 but the same was not deposited in the Bank account and therefore, he was charged for misconduct. A domestic enquiry was thereafter initiated and in course of the enquiry, a confessional statement is alleged to have been made by the workman - Shri Tara Singh in the form of a letter wherein he was alleged to have accepted the charge. On the basis of this confessional statement the charges were held to have been proved in the enquiry. Thereafter a dispute was raised and hence the reference was initiated as stated hereinbefore for adjudication of the question in terms of the reference recorded hereinbefore. The Labour Court extensively examined the case and the counter case of the contesting parties - that is the Management and the workman, wherein a finding has been recorded to the effect that the petitioner management did not produce adequate evidence in support of the charge of misappropriation and merely relied upon the letter of confession alleged to have been written by Shri Tara Singh in front of one employee of the Bank-Shri Anil Garg. However, this portion of the evidence was also disbelieved by the Labour Court on the ground that even as per the evidence of Anil Garg, the confessional statement was of a period during which Anil Garg was not in service. What was sought to be emphasised by the Labour Court was that the confessional statement alleged to have been made by Shri Tara Singh could not have been relied upon for two reasons-firstly even if such a statement was recorded, the same was done under duress at the instance of the Management which went into luring the workman by stating that if you do not contest the charge, you will be awarded a lenient punishment any everything would be set right which prompted the respondent to make confessional statement which was tainted and could not have been relied upon having any evidentiary value. Besides this, the witness-Anil Garg who was produced by the Management to establish the veracity of the confessional statement, could hardly be treated as trustworthy, as Anil Garg himself admitted that he was not in service on the date when the confessional statement was recorded and hence he could not have been relied upon as a competent witness to
