AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 9262 of 1997
dated 6.1.2006, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.
The case of the appellant/writ petitioner is that he was employed as Cleaner in the Canteen in the second respondent Company from the year
1972 on temporary basis and he was made permanent on 30.12.1986. On 16.2.1990, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner under Clause
13(4) of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company stating that the petitioner has stolen a bicycle belonging to a co-employee by name
Santhanakrishnan on 14.2.1990 at about 1.30 a.m. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 21.2.1990 and denied the charges. Another charge
memo was issued on 8.3.1990 alleging that the appellant/writ petitioner threatened the co-employee, for which also the appellant/writ petitioner
submitted his explanation on 9.3.1990 and denied the charge. Having not satisfied with the explanations, a domestic enquiry was conducted in
respect of the said charges. The management examined five witnesses on its side and the appellant was also examined. Appellant was given the
assistance of a co-employee. On 26.4.1990, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that both the charges levelled against the
appellant/writ petitioner have been proved and based on the proven charges, appellant/writ petitioner was dismissed from service by the second
respondent from 6.7.1990. The appellant/writ petitioner raised a dispute as the conciliation efforts failed, the appellant/writ petitioner moved the
Labour Court u/s 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the same was tried as I.D. No. 697 of 1991. In the claim petition the appellant
prayed for reinstatement with backwages. The Labour Court found that the punishment imposed against the appellant was excessive and the theft
of the cycle of a co-employee is an ignorable offence and ordered to pay Rs. 25,000/- as lumpsum payment in lieu of reinstatement and
backwages. Being aggrieved by the said award dated 20.12.1995 passed by the Labour Court, the appellant filed W.P. No. 9262 of 1997 before
this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 6.1.2006, as against which the present writ appeal has
been preferred.
The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner at the time of arguments submitted that the writ petition filed by the appellant was
earlier allowed by the learned single Judge on 21.9.2004 and on appeal it was set aside on the ground that the second respondent Management
was not heard while passing the order and the Division Bench remitted the matter for passing fresh orders and after remittance, now the writ
petition is dismissed by order dated 6.1.2006 and the same is unsustainable. The learned Counsel also submitted that the appellant/writ petitioner
has taken the cycle of a co-employee only on mistaken identity and the same was handed over to its owner/co-employee on the next day and
therefore the occurrence having took place on mistake of fact, without any evil motive, the management ought not to have framed the charge and
dismissed the appellant/writ petitioner from service.
We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant along with the earlier orders passed by this Court in this
matter. Initially, the writ petition was allowed by the learned single Judge on 21.9.2004 and at that time, the name of the counsel for the
management was not printed in the cause list and therefore, the learned Counsel for the management could not be present. The said fact was
proved before the Division Bench in W.A. No. 557 of 2005 and the Division Bench by Judgment dated 17.8.2005 held that the earlier order
passed in the writ petition on 21.9.2004 without printing the name of the counsel for the second respondent, who filed vakalat, in the cause list, is a
nullity and therefore set aside the said order and remitted the matter back to the single Judge for fresh disposal after hearing the parties. In view of
the said order passed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 557 of 2005 dated 17.8.2005, there is no substance in the arguments advanced by the
learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner that there is already an order of reinstatement.
Insofar as the merits of the case is concerned, the charges levelled against the Appellant/writ petitioner are one of theft of a bicycle belonging to
another employee by name G.Santhanakrishnan and the second charge is that the appellant threatened the security watchmen Manickam and
V.M.Krishnan. The management examined five witnesses to prove the said charges. The petitioner also participated in the enquiry and he was also
given assistance of a co-employee. Enquiry report was submitted on 26.4.1990 holding that the charges are proved. Based on the proved charges,
petitioner was dismissed from service on 6.7.1990. The matter was taken to the Labour Court and the appellant marked 14 documents to
substantiate his case. However, he did not let in oral evidence. The second respondent management produced 25 documents. On appreciation of
the material documents and facts, the Labour Court thought fit that reinstatement cannot be ordered and only a lumpsum compensation of Rs.
25,000/- can be ordered to the appellant/writ petitioner. The learned single Judge confirmed the said award and dismissed the writ petition.
The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner that the bicycle of the said Santhanakrishnan was taken by the
appellant/writ petitioner on mistaken identity, can be accepted only if his cycle was found in the row, but that was not the fact. The said
Santhanakrishnan also gave complaint about the missing of his bicycle on 13.2.1990, which was marked as Ex.W-6 before the Labour Court.
Hence the findings given by the Enquiry Officer based on which the appellant/writ petitioner was dismissed, cannot be treated as perverse finding.
The Enquiry Officer as well as the Labour Court found that the charge of threatening of officials of the second respondent Company by the
appellant/writ petitioner was proved and the said finding of fact has not been interfered by the learned single Judge.
We are of the view that the findings of fact arrived at by the Enquiry Officer and the Labour Court cannot be interfered with in writ petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless it is established that the said findings are perverse in nature. Theft of a bicycle from the Cycle
Stand of the second respondent Company, committed by the appellant/writ petitioner is a very serious charge. Similarly, threatening the security
and Anr. person which was also proved is in violation of the Standing Orders - paragraphs 13(4), (8) & (12). The Labour Court still considered
the matter and exercised its power u/s 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as lumpsum compensation.
The same is upheld by the learned single Judge.
The power of the Court to interfere with the punishment imposed is considered by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2006) 1 SCC
63 (Karnataka Bank Ltd. v. A.L. Mohan Rao) In paragraph 6 of the Judgment the Supreme Court held as follows:
...It is not for the courts to interfere in cases of gross misconduct of 1this nature with the decision of the disciplinary authority so long as the inquiry
has been fair and proper and misconduct proved. In such matters, it is for the disciplinary authority to decide what is the fit punishment. In any case
on such a misconduct, it could never have been said that termination of service is not the appropriate punishment.
In this case, we are of the view that since the charges levelled against the appellant/writ petitioner are proved, the appellant is not entitled for
reinstatement or any other relief other than the one ordered by the Labour Court.
There is no merit in the writ appeal and the same is dismissed in limini. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.