AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—These two petitions have bee filed assailing the award dated 16-2-2004 and 22-10-1999 respectively passed by the Labour Court, Bangalore in Ref. No. 198/1987 treating the order of dismissal as compulsory retirement as on 10-4-1985.
It is alleged that the first party workman committed theft of various electronic items and concealed in the lockers. On inspection it was found that he had unauthorisedly hidden in all about 13 articles belonging to the petitioner-Company. An enquiry was held and he was dismissed from service. The said order of dismissal was challenged before the Labour Court, Bangalore. The Labour Court by its impugned award has modified the order of dismissal into compulsory retirement. Hence, these two writ petitions by the Company as well as by the Workmen,
Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.
It is submission of the learned Counsel for the workman that this locker was in joint possession of two or more persons. Although he has denied the fact of keeping any such articles in the locker, ultimately he was found in possession of some articles with dishonest intention and there is no actual commission of theft nor dishonest intention on his part to remove the articles unlawfully from the factory premises and he was unnecessarily victimized.
Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the Company submitted that the order of dismissal was appropriate as, on opening the locker 6 articles belonging to the Company were found. The Labour Court without considering the same modified the order of dismissal into compulsory retirement. The workman had concealed these articles with an intention to commit theft and to sell them outside the factory for unlawful gain. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel fox the Company that the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority ought not to have been interfered with by the Labour Court.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties, the points that would arise for consideration are as to-
(i) Whether the Labour Court was justified in ordering for compulsory retirement?
(ii) Whether the impugned award needs interference?
What is being noticed is that the workman as well as one V.D. Bhojan were using the locker jointly and it is also noticed that 8 articles belonging to the Company were found in the locker which were concealed in the locker with an intention to sell then outside the factory to make unlawful gain. When the inspection was conducted; those articles were found and were seized. It is further noted that the first party was allotted a locker to keep his belongings and when it was opened on 1st July 1983, 5 articles belonging to the second party wore found in the locker and in another locker which was operated by himself and another person Bhojan, about 8 articles were found, in all 13 articles were found and the same is net disputed.
The fact remains that the finding of the Labour Court in so far as the locker which was operated by the workman is concerned, it was found that there were 5 articles. So fax as second locker, which was being used the workman and one Bhojan, there were 8 articles and they were also seized. The Labour Court has not given any finding as to the fact that the act of the workman was (sic) too theft for unlawful gain, except stating that those articles were found in possession of the first party workman in two lockers one is being-operated exclusively by him and another by himself and one Bhojan. It appears Bhojan has resigned the job end has taken terminal benefits. As a matter of fact finding, the Labour Court hold that the enquiry held is fair and proper. Even on re-appreciation of material evidence on record, the Labour Court formed an opinion that there is no discrepancy or perversity in the finding of the Enquiry Officer.
What is to be noted is that whether the workman had an intention to smuggle the articles belonging to the second party. It is noticed that these articles were kept in the locker, which was allotted to the workman. Of course, the articles were kept in the locker, which was inside the factory premises of the second party, neither it was recovered from the pocket of the workman nor it was found in his possession while he was going out of the factory premises. The only allegation is that these items were found in the locker allotted to the workman. Hence, the inference drawn by the Enquiry Authority is that the workman was with an intention of smuggling the articles to make unlawful gain. But a detailed enquiry was not held as to whether these items were picked up and kept in the locker, whether he was intended to remove them from the locker and to take them outside the factory for unlawful gain. Therefore, the finding of the Enquiry Authority although explained to some extent that the workman was in possession of the articles, but whether it was smuggled or not could not be established by the second party by placing materials and adducing soma evidence in this regard and also there are no such past misconduct being established against the workman.
In the circumstances, though Labour Court ordered for compulsory retirement in modification of the order of dismissal, it is seen that the order of dismissal came to be passed during 1984. The matter is pending for almost 23 years after the award of the Labour Court, which came to be passed during 2004. Accordingly, on the principle "No Pay For No Work", the workman would not be entitled for back wages. So far as payment of consequential benefits is concerned, when he has lost the job as early as in the year 1984, the matter was prolonged for almost 25 years, the workman would be entitled for terminal benefits till the award of the Labour Court without any back wages and without consequential benefits in modification of the award of the Labour Court. The workman is entitled for continuity of service only for the purpose of the terminal benefits till the date of the award of the Labour Court.
Accordingly, the petition filed by the workmen is Allowed in part and the petition filed by the Company is dismissed.