AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Vinod Chandran, J.—The petitioner challenges Exhibit P1 Award of the Labour Court, Kozhikode. The petitioner, admittedly, was a workman of the 2nd respondent-management, engaged in the branch office at Agra and Varanasi, wherein instances of misconduct were revealed and the petitioner was proceeded against and dismissed after an enquiry into the misconducts alleged. The petitioner raised a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity "ID Act") and the issue whether the dismissal was justifiable or not, was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court found that the enquiry was properly conducted and that too in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Labour Court, however, found that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse and the same was set aside. Having found that there is no procedural irregularity, it was not open to the Labour Court to enter into the sustainability of the findings of the Enquiry Officer. However, in any event, the enquiry report was set aside and the management was given a fresh opportunity to adduce evidence. On a consideration of the evidence adduced before the Labour Court, the Labour Court found that the misconducts alleged were proved. The management levelled six charges against the workman and the explanation submitted by the workman was found to be unsatisfactory. The first charge was with respect to misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 13,961.25, which was assailed by the workman on the ground that he had incurred expenses for canvassing new business and had borrowed from third parties, for which he was liable to pay interest. It was the workman''s case that he had accounted the expenses incurred and no allegation of misappropriation could be levelled against him. However, the management witness, MW-1, who was the Internal Auditor, deposed that he had found shortage of cash on physical verification and there was absolutely no authorisation to borrow funds for the purpose of the Company.
The next charge was with respect to drawing House Rent Allowance, which the workman was not entitled to. Even while considering the question whether the petitioner was a workman or not, the ineligibility of an employee below the rank of Manager for House Rent Allowance, was the aspect relied on by the Labour Court, to find that the petitioner was a workman and was entitled to maintain the above dispute. Hence definitely the workman was not entitled to House Rent Allowance, which he was found to have withdrawn, unauthorisedly. The further allegation with respect to shortage of cash was admitted by the workman. It was on the basis of the allegations of misappropriation of funds that the workman was transferred, originally to Varanasi and then to Agra, wherein also the workman continued the misconducts of misappropriation.
One other factor which was looked into by the Labour Court was the delay caused in raising the dispute. It is clear on a reading of the award of the Labour Court that the management had issued show cause notice, Exhibit M10, on 24.04.2004 threatening imposition of punishment of dismissal of the employee, to which the workman had replied by Exhibit M11 on 01.05.2004. A further notice issued as per Exhibit M12 dated 12.08.2004 was also replied by Exhibit M13 dated 30.08.2004. It was thereafter that the petitioner was issued with the memo, dismissing him from service. The workman had accepted the same and the dismissal was effective from 25.05.2005. The workman had also received the entire benefits due to such dismissal as per Exhibit M22.
It was thereafter, that too after three years, on 25.04.2008, that the workman raised the dispute before the District Labour Officer, which was referred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the delay caused in raising the dispute also worked against the workman. This Court is not persuaded to hold that the findings of the Labour Court are in any manner unreasonable or perverse. The order of the Labour Court is, hence, confirmed. The next question is with respect to the punishment imposed, which was found to be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. It is to be noticed that the Labour Court, after looking into the misconducts alleged and proved against the workman, being misappropriation of funds; found that the order of dismissal cannot be interfered with u/s 11A of the Act. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the refusal of the Labour Court to exercise discretion to interfere with the punishment imposed.
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and stands dismissed. No costs.