POKKEN Vs. JESSIE ESTATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This O.P. is filed by the petitioner to quash Ext. P3 award and direct the first respondent to take back the petitioner in service with back wages from the date of suspension till reinstatement.

(2.) Petitioner was a worker under the first respondent. Alleging that on some night prior to 23-5-1987 the petitioner along with his co - worker one Ramakrishnan trespassed into one of the servants quarters within the compound of estate Managers bunglow and committed theft of two wooden cots, a memo of charges was issued to the petitioner. Though the petitioner denied the allegation, enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and the co - worker and he was kept under suspension pending enquiry. An enquiry officer was appointed and after enquiry it was found that the charge against the petitioner was proved. On the basis of and accepting enquiry report, by memo dt. 16-11 - 87 the petitioner was dismissed from service by the first respondent. As against Ext. P1 order industrial dispute was raised and it was referred to the Labour Court, Kannur. The Labour Court, Kannur by Ext. P3 award finding that the dismissal of the petitioner is justified held that he is not entitled to be reinstated in service with back wages and continuity of service. Hence the petitioner has filed this O.P. seeking necessary relief.

(3.) It is patent from Ext. P1 order passed by the management dismissing the petitioner from service and Ext. P3 award passed by the Labour Court that there was absolutely no legal advice adduced by the management before the enquiry officer to connect the petitioner with the offence of theft alleged in this case. Even though it is alleged that the petitioner and the co - worker Ramakrishnan committed theft of two cots from the servants quarters of the first respondent, the petitioner is implicated on the basis of confession statement given by the coaccused Ramakrishnan to the effect that he along with the petitioner committed theft of two cots from the servants quarters. The only other material produced before the enquiry officer is the evidence of attesting witnesses for seizure of cots from the residence of Ramakrishnan to the effect that at the time of seizure the petitioner was also present. There is absolutely nothing on record with regard to the involvement of the petitioner in the crime except these allegations. The enquiry officer found that as it is not possible for Ramakrishnan alone to remove two cots from the servants quarters to his residence the petitioner also involved in the crime. It is elementary knowledge that the confession of a coaccused is not admissible in evidence. Unless and until there is cogent and reliable evidence with regard to the involvement of a delinquent in the commission of the alleged theft it is not possible to find him guilty of the offence of theft and for that matter guilty of misconduct. Therefore it is patent that the enquiry officer disregarding the elementary rule of evidence found that the charge levelled against the petitioner is proved on the basis of no evidence at all and based on matters not admissible in evidence. Therefore the Labour Court should have considered the propriety and validity of the report of enquiry on the basis of the evidence adduced by the management before the enquiry officer and arrived at a conclusion as to whether the enquiry conducted by the management was proper and valid. Therefore, the finding arrived at by the Labour Court in this case that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management in this case, is proper and valid without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner and the evidence adduced before the enquiry officer by the crippled statement in one sentence in para.8 of the award is vitiated and illegal for non application of mind and entering the finding based on no legal and valid evidence material at all.