TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. A S NAGESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the award dated 15-5-2006 in I. D. No. 63/2005. The respondent was working as a driver. He was charge sheeted for unauthorisedly removing the Company car at about 8. 45 p. m. on 31-12-1994 and thereafter got 50 litres of petrol filled for the vehicle and using the said vehicle unauthorisedly for about 100 kms. consuming 40 litres of petrol till 2-1-1995. In this regard, the Enquiry Officer submitted a detailed report as per An-nexure-C inter alia holding that in terms of the admission made by the respondent that, he was on duty and he had taken the vehicle at about 4. 30 p. m. at the direction of one kamalapathy and got filled 50 litres of petrol held that the charges are proved. The Disciplinary Authority based on the findings of the enquiry Officer and also on consideration of the reply given by the respondent found that the respondent is guilty of misconduct and imposed an order of dismissal.

(2.) THE respondent raised a dispute before the Labour Court. The Labour Court held that the enquiry is fair and proper by its order dated 8-6-2000. However, on re-appreciation of the evidence found that there is contradiction between the evidence of kamalapathy and Joseph Mariadass and in the light of the contradiction, the Labour Court and held that, the charge is not proved and directed the management to reinstate the respondent with full backwages and consequential benefits and also imposed cost of Rs. 1,500/ -.

(3.) SRI Kasthuri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Management submitted that, the respondent has admitted that, he had taken the car from the premises of the company and has also admitted that he got filled 50 litres of petrol. The only defence of the respondent is that, he had kept back the car in the Company premises at about 6. 15 p. m. In this regard, he relied on the statement of the respondent given before the Enquiry officer wherein the respondent has stated that he had removed the car at the direction of kamalapathy. Learned Senior Counsel referred to the evidence of Kamalapathy and submitted that the respondent though has cross-examined Kamalapathy, but did not make any suggestion, as to whether the kamalapathy has asked him to remove the car. Relying on the evidence of Kamalapathy as well as the evidence of the respondent, he further submitted that, removing the car from the premises is admitted by the respondent. In this regard, he also relied on the Daily Duty Register and referred to the Register dated 31-12-1994 and pointed out that, the name of the respondent is not mentioned in the Duty Register. If the respondent was not on duty, he had no right to remove the car from the premises of the Company. The fact remains that the respondent has removed the car and got the prtrol filled, then the burden was on him to show, as to how he removed the car. He also submitted that the case of the respondent is that he was on emergency duty but no suchmaterial is produced before the Enquiry Officer to show that the respondent was on emergency duty. Despite of the admission of the respondent that he had taken the car from the company premises and got the petrol filled in the car, the Labour Court has committed an error in reversing the punishment. If the respondent has taken a stand that he was on emergency duty, the respondent should have proved the same. He further submitted that there is no material to show that after the respondent any other person has removed the car.