POKKEN Vs. BHAGAVATI TEA ESTATES LIMITED

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 May 23, 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 dated November 16, 1987 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.) Petitioner has contended that the very allegation of theft made against him is false, illegal and based on no evidence. He has also contended that the enquiry conducted in this case is vitiated since the enquiry officer without considering the evidence on record and on mere surmises and conjectures and facts not at all supported by evidence illegally found that the charge levelled against the petitioner is proved. He has also contended that inspite of specific contention raised by him before the Labour Court that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management in this case was improper, illegal and invalid, the labour Court without considering that contention and applying its mind found that domestic enquiry conducted is proper and valid by simply stating that it is proper and valid without any consideration of the preliminary point raised by the petitioner at all as is evident from para 8 of Ext.P3 award. Therefore it is contended that the finding arrived at in the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer and the 1 finding of the Labour Court that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management is proper and valid being absolutely illegal, unsupported by any evidence and on consideration of inadmissible evidence and extraneous matters are liable to be interfered with by this Court by exercising its jurisdiction under Section 226 of the Constitution.