SHEHNAZ Vs. MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dtd. 29/6/2019, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubbali in KID No.9/2016, vide Annexure-G to the writ petition, wherein the enquiry held against the petitioner is considered to be fair and proper and another order dtd. 28/12/2020, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubballi in KID No.9/2016, vide Annexure-H to the writ petition, wherein the claim of the petitioner has been dimissed, the instant writ petition is filed.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed in the year 1993 as Junior Assistant and she was working with the respondent - Management at Belagavi Division. She was entrusted to lookafter the Tapal Sec. by entering inward, outward and also sending notices to the concerned parties through UCP (under certificate of posting), RPAD (registered post acknowledgment due) and also through ordinary posts as and when required. In the course of her work, the allegation is that she has caused monetary loss to the respondent - Corporation by raising bogus receipts, creating bogus entries, entering letters repeatedly and thereby has misappropriated the amounts to a tune of Rs.9,02,856.00. The Enquiry Officer found the allegations against the petitioner to be correct and based on his findings, the petitioner has been terminated from the service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Labour Court by way of KID No.9/2016 wherein the Labour Court has held that the enquiry against her to be fair and proper and has also dismissed her claim. Aggrieved by the same, the instant writ petition is filed.

(3.) Advocate for the petitioner in the course of arguments does not dispute that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was fair and proper and opportunity was provided to her. However, he contends that upon the evidence adduced, it cannot be held that she forged the signature of her Superior Officers and that the Enquiry Officer himself has come to the conclusion that without the Forensic report, forging of the signature by the petitioner cannot be accepted. On the said ground, it is prayed that the impugned orders be set aside.