KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., (SIDCO), REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. M. IBRAHIMKUTTY AND THE LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON January 5, 1985, the Kerala State Small Industries Development and Employment Corporation issued a memo of charges to the respondent Ibrahimkutty. It was alleged that while working as "attender" he had failed to remit Rs. 8,400/ - received "on account of the sales for the period from 12/82 to 5/83....". On July 9, 1985, a modified memo of charges was issued. The basic allegation remained unchanged. Vide order dated September 18, 1986, the workman was dismissed from service. He raised an Industrial Dispute. Having failed before the Labour Court, he approached this Court through a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) ON consideration of the matter, the learned Single Judge has found that the punishment awarded to the workman was totally disproportionate to the charges proved against him. Thus, the order of dismissal and the award given by the Labour Court, were set aside. The employer was given the option to impose "any of the penalties provided under Clause (a) to (d) of Regulation 61 of Staff Regulations...". It was further ordered that the employer shall give "backwages at the rate of 40%" to the workman for the period he was out of service pursuant to the order of dismissal till the due date of retirement.

(3.) A perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge shows that the workman Ibrahimkutty was merely employed as a store attendant. His work was being supervised by persons senior to him viz. Sri. E. Erani, A.M. Basheer and Vikraman Pillai. It has been further found that the workman had only passed the 8th class examination. Thus, his ability to maintain accounts etc., was limited. Still further, it has been noticed that the Corporation (present appellant) had charge sheeted three superior officers viz. Sri. E. Erani, A.M. Basheer and Vikraman Pillai. The two officers were awarded the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. Sri. Vikraman Pillai was ordered to be dismissed. It is on consideration of all these facts that the learned Single Judge has recorded a positive finding that the workman did not deserve the maximum punishment of dismissal from service. The "extreme punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the charges established having regard to the educational qualification and the post held by him". It has also been noticed that the Manager in charge and an Accountant were exercising supervisory functions. If they had performed their duties efficient, "there would not have been any occasion for the alleged misconduct" against the workman. Nothing has been pointed out to show that these findings are not in conformity with the material on record.