PUDUR KSHEEROLPADAKA SAHAKARANA SANGAM Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXT.P2 preliminary order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad on 14.9.2010 in I.D.No.33 of 2008 and I.D.No.39 of 2008 is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner is a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Respondents 2 and 3 are employees of the said society. They were dismissed from service based on the findings in a domestic enquiry that was held into the charges levelled against them and another. The issue referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal was whether the dismissal of respondents 2 and 3 is justified. The Industrial Tribunal, after perusing the files relating to the enquiry, held that two memos of charges have been issued to the employees, namely one dated 23.7.2006 and another dated 10.11.2006, that the employees had walked out of the enquiry on 30.11.2006 dissatisfied with the appointment of Smt.Kavitha as the Presenting Officer by the management and that there was no defect in the enquiry till 30.11.2006. The Industrial Tribunal however held that as the enquiry into the second charge memo dated 10.11.2006 was also held on 30.11.2006 in the absence of the workmen and that in fairness the workmen should be given an opportunity to cross- examine the management witnesses in relation to the second charge sheet dated 10.11.2006 and to adduce defence evidence in respect of both the charges namely, the charge memo dated 23.10.2006 and the charge memo dated 10.11.2006.

(2.) IN my opinion the exercise of discretion by the INdustrial Tribunal in favour of the workmen cannot be said to be perverse. The INdustrial Tribunal felt, on a scrutiny of the enquiry report and the attendant circumstances, that the workmen should be afforded an opportunity to adduce defence evidence and also to cross-examine the management witnesses, who were examined in their absence, to prove the charges in the second memo of charges dated 10.11.2006. The mere fact that if I were to function as the INdustrial Tribunal I might have taken a different view on the same set of facts is not a reason to entertain this writ petition. This Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of INdia does not act as an appellate authority. The INdustrial Tribunal has not by the impugned order deprived the management of its right to prove the charges. The INdustrial Tribunal has only permitted the employees, who have been dismissed from service, an opportunity to cross-examine the management witnesses in relation to the second charge memo and to adduce defence evidence in respect of both the charge memos. The charge levelled against the employees include allegations of misappropriation. It is a charge which has to be proved by documentary evidence. If documents are available and have been produced before the enquiry officer the management can rely on the said documents to contend for the position that the charges levelled against the employees have been made out. It cannot therefore be said that any real prejudice has been caused to the employer by the order under challenge. I therefore find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.