AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The Petitioner has filed this writ petition, praying for issuance of a writ, in the nature of certiorari, to quash the order, dated 23.08.2005, vide which, the petition filed by the Petitioner, under 33 C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, has been ordered to be dismissed.
The Petitioner was working as ''Circle Supervisor'' in Ramanathapuram District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Ramanathapuram. The Petitioner retired on attaining superannuation on 31.05.1991.
The claim of the Petitioner was that the 1st Respondent management had not disbursed the salary for the earned leave period and therefore, being a determined sum the Petitioner was entitled to recover of the amount u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act.
The application was opposed, wherein it was pleaded that the Petitioner was guilty of scandal in disbursement of Sheep loan disbursed through the Rajakambeeram Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank. The Petitioner was placed under suspension on 29.10.1987. On the request of the Petitioner, the suspension was subsequently revoked and he was served with a charge memo on 17.10.1990.
In the Enquiry Officer held the Petitioner was found guilty of three charges and an order of punishment was passed withholding the increment for three years with cumulative effect as the punishing authority accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and imposed a punishment of withholding increment.
The stand of the 1st Respondent is that the order of punishment could not be given effect to, as the Petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation. Thereafter, vide order 29.07.1992, another order was passed to recover the amount of Rs. 55,000/-[Rupees Fifty five thousand only] from the gratuity of the Petitioner.
In view of the fact that, no recovery could be made from the gratuity amount, the order was set aside and the 1st Respondent deducted the amount from other retiral benefits of the Petitioner.
The learned Labour Court, Madurai, dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the Petitioner had not challenged the order of punishment. Therefore, it was not open to the Petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act.
The order passed by the learned Labour Court, Madurai, cannot be sustained, as it was not open to the Respondents to convert the punishment of stoppage of increment to one for recovery, without following due process of law.
Subsequent order of recovery, therefore, is voidabinitio and can not be a basis to permit the Petitioner to deduct amount, out of the retiral benefits payable of the Petitioner.
The facts herein above would show that the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Madurai, is outcome of the misinterpretation of the order of punishment, therefore, perverse, which can not be sustained in law.
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside. The learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent stated that some amount is recoverable from the Petitioner, as outstanding loan. This fact is disputed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, therefore, the case is remitted back to the learned Labour Court, Madurai, to adjudicate the claim of the Petitioner on merit in accordance with law.
The learned Labour Court, Madurai, is directed to pass a fresh order preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. No costs.