HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED Vs. GULAB SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The management of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited has presented this petition praying for quashing the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, rejecting the application of the petitioner made under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act ("the Act" for short) seeking approval for the dismissal from service of the first respondent.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : Respondent No. 1 was a workman in the service of the petitioner. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against him with the issue of the charge sheet dated 17th September, 1981. It reads : "Sub : Charge-sheet Ref : Suspension Order No. A/A PO-III 200/254/81 dated 10.9.1981. During the month of August, 1981, you were posted to work in the second shift 16.15 hours to 0015 hours. On 31st August, 1981 which was a salary disbursement day, you entered the factory at about 9.15 a.m. and drew Rs. 295 as your salary. At about 10.30 a.m. on the same day, you went to Drop Tank Shop and were seen by Vigilance Guards collecting your dues together with interest towards the money you had lent in the department to the following employees of your department. S. No. Name and B. No. Amount Rs. 1. R. Kanakasabapathy 1329/51923-95 75 2. Vekatappa " 55471-39 40 3. T. N. Iswara " 55733-29 110 4. S. Muniswamy " 55774-67 130 5. D. N. Gangadhara " 56367-67 22 6. K. S. Poovaiah " 55494-67 165 7. Mohammed Ishaq " 58115-47 120 8. D. R. Swamy " 41345-28 50 9. V. S. Kannan " 55760-45 70 ------782------ The amount of money collected by you from each of the above mentioned employees is as shown against their names. 2. You were then taken to the Vigilance Office where the following documents along with Rs. 1,106 i.e., Rs. 295 and Rs. 782 and Rs. 29, which you had on your person when you entered factory were seized under mahazar. 1. Your pay cover for the month of August 1981; 2. Employee Gate Pass dated 31st March, 1981 authorising you to go out after drawing your salary. The sum of Rs. 295 which was your salary for the month of August was returned to you at the same time after obtaining you acknowledgment of the mahazar. 3.You were thus indulging in money-lending to employees within the company premises. 4.The above constitute acts of misconduct under the following clauses of standing orders : Clause 25(19) 'Gambling, money-lending or doing any other private business within the company's premises. Clause 25(8) : Breach of standing orders or rules or any law applicable to the establishment. 5.You are, therefore, called upon to submit your explanation in writing on or before.... as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you. In case no explanation is received within the stipulated period, it will be presumed that you have no explanation to offer and further action as deemed fit will be taken against you." In his reply to the charge-sheet, vide Annexure-B, dated 29th September 1981, the first respondent did not dispute the allegations levelled against him. Thereafter, an enquiry was held by the Inquiring Authority nominated by the petitioner. In the course of the inquiry also, the first respondent pleaded for a lenient treatment. The Inquiring Authority held that the first respondent was guilty of the charge framed against him. Final show-cause notice was also issued to the first respondent proposing to impose the penalty of dismissal from service. Again, in his reply dated 2nd November, 1981 (annexure-F), the first respondent did not dispute the findings recorded against him, but pleaded for mercy. The management, however, proceeded to impose the penalty of dismissal from service. As certain industrial dispute between the petitioner and their workmen with which the first respondent was connected was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner made an application under S. 33(2)(b) of the Act seeking its approval for the order by which penalty of dismissal from service was imposed against the first respondent. A preliminary objection was raised by the first respondent to the effect that the domestic inquiry was defective. This plea of the first respondent was rejected by the Industrial Tribunal by its order dated 25th January, 1984 (annexure-K). However, by final order dated 28th January, 1985, the Tribunal held that the first respondent had not indulged in money-lending transaction and, therefore, he was not guilty of the charge. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has presented his petition.

(3.) Sri H. B. Datar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order of the Industrial Tribunal suffered from patent error of law, in that, not only for the reason that the Tribunal had failed to notice that in all the statements made before the Inquiring Authority, the first respondent was admitted his guilt and that was one of the grounds on which the domestic enquiry was held valid, but also for the reason that in the face of the glaring facts about the first respondent indulging in money-lending, the Tribunal recorded a finding that he was only collecting money which he had given as hand loan and not in the course of money-lending business.