LAWS(KAR)-2011-11-177

P C MANJANA GOWDA S/O. LATE CHELUVE GOWDA Vs. KARNATAKA HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED(A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING) HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 1 TANK ROAD COMMERCIAL COMPLEX NEAR MEG CENTRE, ULSOOR BANGALORE-560 042 REP. BY ITS

Decided On November 19, 2011
P C Manjana Gowda S/O. Late Cheluve Gowda Appellant
V/S
Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation Limited(A Government Of Karnataka Undertaking) Having Its Office At No. 1 Tank Road Commercial Complex Near Meg Centre, Ulsoor Bangalore -560 042 Rep. By Its Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE workman of the respondent -establishment aggrieved by the award dt. 2.11.2009 in Ref.No.42/2005 of the II Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore rejecting the reference and upholding the order of dismissal dt. 21.3.2000, has presented this petition.

(2.) THERE is no dispute that the petitioner while an in -charge cashier was handling cash and was the custodian of cash, preparing procurement bills and making payments including payment to weavers, wages to employees after obtaining their signature, in addition to discharging the duties of maintaining weavers wage extract day book, cash book and other payments. In the course of discharge of duties, it came to light that the petitioner adopted two methods of modus operandi for misappropriation, the first of which resulted in misappropriation of Rs.3,87,180/ - in relation to 75 transactions on different dates, while the second resulted in inflating entries in the weavers' wages and day book. The enquiry into the misappropriation led to a voluntary admission by the petitioner over the misappropriation following which petitioner remitted Rs.93,368/ - on different dates at Kallur. In that view of the matter, petitioner having admitted the allegation of misappropriation and repaid the amounts, the misconduct was proved and the Labour Court by the award impugned, was fully justified in rejecting the reference of the industrial dispute for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The award impugned is not shown to suffer from any legal infirmities occasioning grave injustice to the petitioner calling for interference.