BASAPPA YELLAPPA KAPPAD Vs. SUNDARAM INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE workman is aggrieved of the impugned award dated November 18, 1995 passed by the industrial Tribunal in I. D. No. 298/1986 has filed this Writ petition urging various legal grounds.

(2.) THE 2nd Respondent Tribunal has adjudicated the Industrial Dispute referred to it pertaining the order of dismissal dated December 5, 1984 passed against the workman in exercise of its powers under Section 11 and 15 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (in short the 'act') and passed the impugned award rejecting the reference made to it by the Karnataka State government.

(3.) THE Tribunal on the basis of the points of dispute referred to it, and on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, it had framed the issues in addition to the points of dispute and adjudicated the dispute between the parties and passed an award. The issue regarding the validity of domestic enquiry was tried as a preliminary issue and answered the same at paragraph 10 of the award in the negative holding the enquiry conducted by the first respondent is not fair, legal and valid. Having answered the issue No. 1, in favour of the workman, at paragraph 13 of the award it has assigned its reasons while answering the issue No. 2, on appreciation of material evidence on record, adduced by the first respondent and also considered the evidences of MW-1, mw-4 and MW-6, it has recorded its findings holding that the act of misconduct alleged against the workman is proved. Further the Industrial Tribunal has appreciated the evidences on record and it has recorded its findings assigning valid reasons at paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 17 of the award. The petitioner-workman himself has admitted the material documents placed on record, with regard to the charges made against him. Added to this the evidence of MW-5 and MW-6 corroborates the charges he made against the petitioner/workman on the basis of the material evidence placed on record by them. The Industrial Tribunal has also considered the evidence of mw-4, wherein he had deposed before it that the money was paid to the Driver Mr. Basappa, the petitioner herein, at the time of taking the delivery. As per Ex. M-1, the report of MW-4, he has paid the money to the petitioner. Further, it is in his evidence that he told him to give it in writing. The Industrial Tribunal has also considered the documentary evidence of Exhibits M-21, m-22 and M-23 letters received from the parties and Exhibits M-24 to M-29 are the carbon copies of the invoice letters the Parties have signed on the said documents for having received the money from them by the petitioner. As per Ex M-1, the report submitted by MW-4, the manager had called the petitioner, enquired with him, as to whether he had collected money from the parties, he had admitted that the amount was collected by him from the parties and remitted to the office of the first respondent. In that regard, he was asked to give in writing. Accordingly, he had given in writing as per Ex. M-12 and M-17 both in Kannada as well as in english respectively.