GOVINDAN UNNITHAN Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ALLEPPY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was an employee of the 3rd respondent - cooperative society. On the basis of a charge that the petitioner misappropriated a sum of Rs. 3459.74 he was dismissed by the society by its order dated 7-10-1971. The dispute which arose as a result of the dismissal was referred under S.10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the Industrial Tribunal, Alleppey The Tribunal by its award dated 24-9-1977 in I. D. No. 2 of 1975 (Ext. P1) found that the management did not conduct a domestic enquiry before passing the order of dismissal On the basis of the evidence adduced before it by both sides, the Tribunal however concluded that the charge was proved and the order of dismissal was justified. The Tribunal did not pronounce upon the right of the employee to receive back wages for the period between the date of the order of dismissal and the date of the award. The petitioner challenges the award.

(2.) The petitioner's counsel Shri M. M. Cherian submits firstly that the award is not reasonably supported by evidence. Secondly he says that the Tribunal ought to have posted the case for evidence on the merits of the charge after it came to a finding on the preliminary issue regarding the validity of the domestic enquiry. The composite order made by the Tribunal has resulted in denial of natural justice to the employee. Thirdly he submits that the award is vitiated by reason of the fact that the Tribunal, having found that no domestic enquiry was held before passing the order of dismissal, relied upon the evidence adduced by the management on the merits of the case, although the management bad not specifically asked the Tribunal for permission to adduce such evidence. This, counsel says, was wrong in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Shankar Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. (1979-II LLJ 194). Fourthly, counsel contends that the Tribunal ought to have awarded back wages for the period between the date of the order of dismissal i. e. 7-10-1971 and the date of the award i. e. 24-9-1977, in view of the fact that, as found by the Tribunal, the order of dismissal was not preceded by an enquiry.

(3.) I see no merit in the contention that the award is not reasonably based on evidence. On the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 3459.74 was not accounted for by the employee and that he had misappropriated the said amount. This finding of fact which is based on cogent evidence is not liable to be interfered with in the present proceedings.