DIVISIONAL MANAGER Vs. JEEVA JYOTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petition by the Management of Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Limited being aggrieved by the Award passed by the Labour Court, Mangalore, in IDA No. 1/2008 [copy at Annexure-G] allowing the reference at the instance of the respondent, setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the Management on the respondent-worker and directing her reinstatement with continuity of service etc., but restricting the back wages to 50%. The respondent had been charged of offence of committing theft of rubber scrap on 7.10.2005 and quantity of 4.50 kilograms of rubber scrap was sought to be stolen by the respondent through her minor daughter by name Renuka by carrying out of the premises of the estate of the Corporation and carried in eight litre bucket.

(2.) It is the version of the Management that the daughter of the respondent-employee was caught in the act and one A B Jattappa-Task Supervisor caught daughter of the respondent while carrying out the rubber scrap; that mahazar was prepared for seizing the stolen articles in the presence of panch witnesses and inquiry followed. The respondent was issued with a charge memo. The departmental enquiry was initiated against the respondent The Inquiry Officer was appointed. The Inquiry Officer held an inquiry and found that the respondent guilty of the charges leveled against her and on such finding submitted a report. Petitioner issued show cause notice to the respondent calling upon her to explain as to why she should not be dismissed from service based on the inquiry report. The explanation submitted by the respondent-worker was considered and an order of dismissal dated 6.8.2007 was passed [copy at Annexure-E]. The charges having been proved, the respondent preferred an appeal and this appeal having been dismissed by the appellate authority, claim petition was filed. The respondent claimed before the labour court that the order of dismissal should be set aside and she should be directed to be reinstated on service with full back wages and other benefits etc.

(3.) The labour court framed preliminary issue as to the legality and validity of the departmental inquiry. The Management led evidence on this aspect Arguments were heard by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court and the learned Judge of the labour court found that the departmental inquiry was neither fair nor proper. The Management was given opportunity to adduce evidence. On behalf of the respondent-worker, she deposed as AW. 1, but no document was marked. On behalf of the petitioner-Management, three witnesses were examined and documentary evidence Ex. M1 to Ex. M19 were marked.