M/S BEML LIMITED Vs. S. NAVEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common questions of law and that of facts arise for decision making, with the consent of learned counsel for parties, petitions are clubbed together, heard finally and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) W.P.No.11191/2013 and W.P.No.11192/2013 are filed by the management of BEML calling in question the orders of even date 29th September 2012 of the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, dismissing Serial Application No.22/2009 and Serial Application No.21/2009 respectively, filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short), for approval of the orders of even date 29.05.2009 dismissing the workman from service.

(3.) Facts briefly stated are: Respondent in each of these petitions, while discharging duties in the petitioner establishment, allegedly, fraudulently drew 1,73,848 number of cholesterol control tablets of the value Rs.16,10,853/- from the stock control stores leading to disciplinary proceeding, appointment of an enquiry officer, who extended reasonable opportunity of hearing to the workman, and submitted a report holding the charge proved, whereafterwards, the disciplinary authority by separate orders of even date 29.05.2009 dismissed the workman for proved misconduct by tendering one month's wage at the end of the shift and filed separate applications on 30.05.2009 in form-'K' under Rule 60(2) of the Industrial Disputes Karnataka Rules invoking Section 33(2)(b) of the Act for approval of the action of dismissal, registered as Serial Application Nos.22/2009 and 21/2009. The said applications were opposed by filing statement of objections of the respondents-workmen, inter-alia, denying the allegation of misconduct, and that there was no proof of committing the misconduct, while dismissal from service was not justified; in addition to the contention that the serial applications filed a day after the order dated 29.05.2009 of dismissal was not in compliance with the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the Act.