AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.S. Karnan, J.—The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 03.04.2002 in I.D. No. 609
of 1997, passed by the second respondent. The short facts of the case are as follows:-
The petitioner/Transport Corporation submits that the first respondent S. Krishnamurthy was appointed as a Material Handler in the erstwhile
Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd., on 10.07.1978 and he was attached to K.K. Nagar Depot. On 06.08.1989, while the first respondent was
working at K.K. Nagar Depot Stores Section, at about 03.15 a.m., Fleet No. GE 455 was operated as a lift bus for crew from K.K. Nagar
Depot to Government Bus Service i.e., Metropolitan Transport Corporation Head Office. At the time of shed out, the vehicle was checked by the
security staff of the petitioner corporation at the gate and it was found that 13 numbers of bearings were wrapped by a gunny bag and kept under
the ladies six seater in that bus. Due to this grave misconduct, he was charge sheeted vide Memo dated 29.09.1989 with the following charges:
i. That he had attempted to steal the 13 Nos. of bearings belongs to the Corporation wrapped in a gunny bag and kept it under ladies six seater of
the Fleet No. GE 455, which was operated as lift for crew on 06.08.1989 at about 03.15 a.m., and during the shed out while checking it was
found by security. His attempt for stealing the 13 Nos. of bearings belongs to stores which amounts to grave misconduct u/s 25(iv) of Certified
Standing Order.
ii. That he was fully responsible for outgoing of those 13 Nos. bearing without permission which amounts to misconduct u/s 25(xliii) of Certified
Standing Order.
iii. That he was negligent in his duty which amounts to misconduct u/s 25(xliii) of Certified Standing Order.
The first respondent had submitted his explanation on 03.05.1990. In order to find out whether the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled
against him, the petitioner Management ordered for a domestic enquiry and the enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner following the
principles of natural justice. The enquiry officer had submitted his findings dated 05.05.1992, wherein the charges levelled against him were held
proved. Based on the findings of the enquiry officer, the first respondent was issued a second show cause memo dated 09.01.1993 calling for his
explanation as to why he should not be removed from service along with the copy of enquiry findings. He had submitted his explanation. After
careful consideration of the explanation of the first respondent and his past records, the management had issued a final order dated 10.07.1995
removing the first respondent from service. The first respondent preferred an appeal to the petitioner Management and the same was rejected on
30.06.1996.
The first respondent had raised an I.D. No. 609 of 1997, before the Labour Court and the Labour Court had ordered for his reinstatement with
continuity of service and back wages and other attendant benefits. The petitioner Corporation had filed a detailed counter statement in the above
said I.D. No. 609 of 1997, disputing the averments made by the first respondent in his petition. In the counter statement it was contended that the
first respondent was originally appointed as Material Handler on 10.07.1978 at K.K. Nagar Depot. While he was working at K.K. Nagar Depot
in Stores on 06.08.1989 he had committed certain act of misconduct. It is pertinent to note that nothing should not go out without knowledge of
the store staff. Hence, the charge memo was issued containing three charges.
The first respondent submitted his explanation on 03.05.1990. The petitioner management not satisfied with the explanation, an enquiry was
conducted after giving an opportunity to the first respondent and also following the principles of natural justice. The enquiry officer had submitted
his findings on 05.05.1992 informing that the charges levelled against him were held proved. Based on the enquiry officer''s findings, a second
show cause memo dated 09.01.1993 issued to the first respondent calling for his explanation. He had submitted his explanation, which was not
satisfactory. Hence, the petitioner Corporation issued a final order dated 10.07.1995 removing him from service.
The Labour Court erred before passing the award without considering the findings of the enquiry officer in his report he clearly exhibited both
delinquent employee Krishnamoorthy and his evidence Rajamanickam in-charge of Stores on that day on night duty, who is also one of the
delinquent who existed in the store in between 01.30 to 02.45 a.m., as these contentions were acceded in their evidences and cross-examination.
Apart from this, the management witness Annamalai, security staff, evidenced that such Fleet No. GE455 was stationed inside the Depot on that
day/night in between 01.30 to 02.45 a.m. Such situation favouring them had planned to steal the bearings and thereby already cleaned 13 Nos. of
bearings wrapped by gunny bags kept under the ladies seat of the lift bus which would have been ready to be shed out at about 03.15 a.m.
Nobody was allowed in the stores. The above store staff only could do it and in order to collect the bearings Krishnamoorthy, stayed away from
the work spot at 03.00 a.m., in an another lift bus without getting permission from the Assistant Branch Manager (Technical), who was on duty on
that day. In this aspect, it reveals that he had played dual role by staying away from the incident spot and to unload the bearings from the bus
outside the Depot, and escaping himself from the charges. His preplan has been proved by evidence and circumstances. But, the Labour Court has
not taken it into account for consideration before passing the Award.
The Labour Court, without considering the gravity of the charges committed by the first respondent, findings of the enquiry report, explanation
and past record of the first respondent and material evidences on record, passed the impugned Award dated 03.04.2002 and the second
respondent set aside the order of dismissal of the first respondent and directed the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the first respondent with
continuity of service with back wages and other attendant benefits. Aggrieved by the said order, the above writ petition has been filed.
The first respondent has filed a counter statement and resisted the writ petition. He has submitted that he was working under the writ petitioner
management as Store Assistant and his last drawn wages were Rs. 3,407.50 per month. He worked sincerely and diligently with entire satisfaction
of all superiors. While so, the writ petitioner management issued a charge memo dated 29.09.1989 framing three charges against him. He denied
all the charges framed against him under his explanation dated 03.05.1990. Not satisfied with his reply, the management conducted a domestic
enquiry.
In the said enquiry, he examined himself as one of the workers and also examined Store Keeper namely M.K. Rajamanickam as a witness and
reiterated his stand that he was in no way connected with stealing the 13 Nos. of bearings belonging to the Corporation. The Store Keeper
Rajamanickam also deposed that there was no stock of bearings on that particular day. But, unfortunately the enquiry officer found him guilty of
charges and based on that findings he was removed from service by the order dated 10.07.1995.
Against the order of dismissal, he raised an Industrial Dispute before the I-Additional Labour Court, Chennai in I.D. No. 609 of 1997. The
Labour Court, after elaborate enquiry passed an award dated 03.04.2002 directing the management to reinstate him in service with continuity of
service, back wages and all other attendant benefits. The Labour Court has given convincing reason for his conclusion. Against the award of the
Labour Court, the management has filed above writ petition.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that at the time of the incident, the first respondent was working at Avadi Depot.
While the first respondent was working at K.K. Nagar Depot, on 06.08.1989, at about 03.15 a.m., bus No. GE455 from K.K. Nagar depot
operated as G.P.S. lift bus. At that time, the bus was checked by the security staff, who found 16 Nos. bearings were wrapped by a gunny bag
kept under the ladies six seater in that bus. The same was communicated to the Assistant Engineer on duty. Therefore, the charge memo was
issued to the first respondent herein.
After conducting a domestic enquiry, he was removed from service that too after a second memo was issued regarding quantum of
punishment.
On the side of the management, one witness was examined and 12 documents were marked. The first respondent had stolen 13 numbers of
bearings covered by a gunny bag and taken out from the Depot. the same was found by the security staff while it was kept under the ladies seat of
the bus. The bearings were identified that they belonged to the Depot. Therefore, all the three charges were proved against the first respondent
beyond doubt.
The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has argued that the respondent was working under the petitioner Corporation from
10.07.1978 without any blemished record. The allegation against the first respondent that a gunny bag containing 13 bearings which were kept
under the ladies seat in the bus and the same was found by the security staff at the entrance of the depot gate. There is no eye witness or
circumstantial evidence that the first respondent had stolen the 13 bearings and put them in a gunny bag and loaded it into the bus, which was kept
under the ladies seat. In the absence of eye witness, the findings of the management is an erroneous one and also dismissing him from service,
which is a larger punishment. Regarding the 13 bearings, no documentary evidence i.e., store records stating that 13 bearings are missing. In the
absence of such evidence, the findings of the management is not sustainable under law.
The management corporation is a State owned Transport Corporation. Therefore, necessary records are being maintained as accessories for
bus vehicles, which is a substantiate document in this case. Therefore, all the three charges have been levelled against the first respondent is based
on an hypothetical theory and with no material evidence. Hence, the Transport Corporation''s dismissal order is against the principles of natural
justice and punishment to a poor employee, who served in the depot of the corporation for 17 years with an unblemished service. Further, the
second respondent''s order is a well considered one and there is no shortenings in the said verdict. Before the second respondent a detailed trial
was conducted, in which both sides'' evidence was examined and on the side of the employee 11 documents were marked as exhibits and on the
side of the management 12 documents were marked as exhibits.
After considering all the oral evidence and documentary evidence, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has passed the impugned
order without any lacuna.
After the above discussion, this Court is of the view that on the side of the Management no eye witness was examined or not shown any
circumstantial evidence stating that the first respondent had stolen 13 bearings from the depot and put into a gunny bag, which was kept under the
ladies seat of the bus. Further, there was no store keeper''s record produced before the domestic enquiry or before the Labour Court regarding
the missing of 13 bearings belonging to the said Corporation.
Further, the store keeper never made any departmental complaint that 13 bearings of the transport corporation were misplaced from the store.
Hence, there is no substantial evidence for the dismissal of the employee from the corporation.
On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the
impugned order of the second respondent, this Court does not find any shortcomings in the conclusion arrived at to set aside the Labour Court''s
order. As such the above writ petition has no compelling force to allow it furthermore.
Where the bearings 13 in numbers were found is not of importance in this case. Where and how the bearings were missing and that too from
the material stores, is the pertinent question, which was not proved through material evidence. Further, the bus is operating for the public and the
public is also travelling by the said bus, as such the employee is not in control in the occupation of the entire inner portion of the bus, since it is
earmarked for public usage, but the bus is not only used by public but also assigned some times for bus crews. In the result, the above writ petition
is dismissed and the Award in I.D. No. 609 of 1997, dated 03.04.2002, passed by the second respondent is confirmed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.