Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
23. As per the management, the workman has sent a letter dated 02/02/99 to the Managing Director of the company at the registered office and the letter was accompanied by a xerox copies comprising 231 sheets which were privileged and confidential documents of the company store at Delhi branch office. On receipt of the said letter, investigation was carried out into the company's record in the branch office and it was found that the originals of the said documents were missing. It was evident from the xerox copies sent to the company along with letter dated 02/02/99 that it was the workman only who had stolen or illegally taken away the original documents from the branch office premises, and got made xerox copies thereof, which was in breach of terms of his employment besides being offence under the law. This was also an act subversive to discipline and good behaviour on the premises of the establishment. The workman even threatened by the said letter itself that he would send the copies of the mentioned confidential documents to outsiders as well as including the Government. The above acts of the workman constituted not only misconduct but total loss of confidence in him and as such his continuing service in the company endangered the business of the company. In the circumstances and keeping in view the past record and the gravity of the acts of misconduct, his services were terminated w.e.f. 17/02/99.
43. As per the management, Gajender Singh Rawat who was already suspended vide suspension letter dated 24/06/97 for grave act of misconduct of quarrel and assault on another employee during working hours in the premises of the company, had also indulged in breach of trust reposed in him as an employee of the company and dispatched copies of the secret and confidential documents vide letter dated 02/02/99 to the Managing Director of the company threatening to send copies of the same to the different departments of Government of India etc. The management investigated into the matter and on investigation it was revealed that Gajender Singh stealthily removed secret and confidential documents pertaining to the management of the company from Delhi Branch Office as the originals could not be traced.
57. Ex. WW1/M2 is the important piece of correspondence on which Ld. AR for management during course of arguments placed heavy emphasis on the contents of the letter sent by the workman to the Managing Director of the company at Bombay. This letter is dated 15/02/99 and it has been stated therein that earlier also workman had sent correspondence by way of complaint against the Officers of Delhi Branch Office, but that the Head Office had not initiated any proper action thereon and that now the workman was sending this letter as a last letter and along with some highly confidential documents. He hopes that the Head Office shall call for an explanation from the Branch Manager about the said documents and that the Head Office shall also keep him informed about the same. The last line of this letter is a warning that in case by 28/02/99 also management fails to send any satisfactory reply to this letter of the workman, he shall divulge all these confidential documents to the Government Authorities.
59. It has not been specified as to on which date and time the workman is alleged to have stolen the documents. It has not been stated as to from where exactly they were stolen. It has also not been stated as to who was Incharge of the place from where the documents were alleged to have been stolen. In other words, where the documents were kept originally. In case, it is presumed for a moment that workman stole the original documents and got them photocopied and sent the photocopies to the Head Office, what steps management took to recover the original documents from the workman, has not been stated. There is no police report on record. No FIR has been placed on record. Even the person Incharge of the place where the documents are supposed to have been kept originally, has not been examined. Even otherwise, the workman even if he has sent only the photocopies and which according to him had been handed over to him by the Branch Manager only during an emergency situation and which he sent to the Head Office, would not amount to divulging any confidential or secret documents to an outsider. It is by way of bringing to the notice of the Head Office the irregularities going on in the Branch Office that the workman has may have sent the photocopies of the documents and it is not by way of divulging confidential papers of the company to an outsider. There is no evidence on record to show that workman divulged photocopies of confidential documents to any outside authority or agency. He has only left it upon Head Office to take care of irregularities and to initiate an appropriate action. Had the workman divulged the confidential documents to an outside authority himself he need not have sent the same to the Head Office and on the contrary he could have divulged the same to an outside authority himself directly. The workman seems to have acted in the interest of the company at large and thus he has invited the wrath of some individual officers at the Branch Office, for whom the workman had become an eyesore. It becomes evident from the surrounding documentsletters that workman was creating hindrances in the alleged corrupt practices of the said officers including Branch Manager Sh. S.K. Malhotra and of the other officials named in his various other letters sent to the Head Office time and again and it is this underlying reason which led to the implication of the workman in a false charge of assault on a coworker and an enquiry. The management conveniently concealed the fact that it was the workman who had been injured in the assault which had been committed on him by the said coworker Chander Singh and management instead of taking action against the coworker Chander Singh, gave a charge sheet to the workman. It is quite strange that workman has produced his MLC as exhibit in this case, while management chose not to do so.