WESTERN INDIA PLYWOODS LTD. Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two writ petitions arise out of the same industrial dispute, I.D. No. 50 of 1976 of the Industrial Tribunal. Calicut. O.P. No. 2017 of 1980 is filed by the employer for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P4 preliminary order and Ext. P6 award, to the extent it relates to one of the employees, the 2nd respondent therein. O.P. No. 2502 of 1980 is filed by the Mercantile Employees Association, Calicut for a similar relief to quash the award in so far as it relates to another employee.

(2.) THE employer is the Western India Plywoods Ltd., Baliapatam - Towards the end of July, 1975 the executive Director of the company noticed alterations, corrections and erasures in certain local purchase bills submitted for his sanction. He suspected fraud and called for all local purchase bills and connected records of the previous 2 years and along with the General Manager, subjected the same to scrutiny. They found alterations, corrections and erasures, all unauthorised, in a number of bills relating to local purchase from a local merchant Sri C.P. Mamoo, from whose shop the company used to purchase certain items of hardware, etc. These alterations had not existed in the bills when the Executive Director passed the bills. The bills had been tampered with after sanction but before payment with the result that the company was made to pay amounts in excess of what were actually due and thereby the company sustained loss. It was also found that the indents were tampered while the vouchers have not been so tampered. The company initiated disciplinary proceedings against four employees, namely, T.P. Varghese (the person whose cause is championed in O.P. No. 2502 of 1980J T. Vijaya Chandran, both of the Accounts Department of the company who had prepared vouchers and allocated various amounts of bills to the appropriate Heads of account, and also against P. Jathavedan Namboodiri (2nd respondent in O.P. 2017 of 1980), the Head of the Local Purchase Section of the company and K. Mustafa, a clerk in the purchase section who was assisting the 2nd respondent in local purchase. Their explanations were called for on 31 -7 -1975, in answer to charge of gross negligence and dereliction of duty. AH of them submitted explanations on 1 -8 -75. On finding them unacceptable, the company ordered domestic enquiry and served formal memo of charges on 14 -8 -1975 and directed them to appear before advocate late Sri K.P. Balakrishnan Nair of Tellicherry Bar who had agreed to conduct the domestic enquiry. All the four employees appeared and submitted explanations in the middle of August, 1975. The General Manager assisted the company and another employee of the company who was also an office bearer of the Trade Union assisted the employees in the domestic enquiry. Evidence was recorded between 22 -8 -1975 and 27 -9 -1975. The enquiry officer submitted Ext. P1 report holding the employees guilty of the misconduct alleged. On the basis of the report company dismissed all the employees and the same was approved under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, reserving the right of the employees to raise an Industrial Dispute. The 2nd respondent personally raised an industrial dispute while the Association raised the dispute on behalf of the three others. The dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Calicut for adjudication under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was taken to file as I.D. No. 50 of 1976. Mean while, the dispute between the Company and two of the employees, namely, T. Vijayachandran and K. Mustafa, was settled. The Tribunal preliminarily held that the domestic enquiry held by the enquiry officer was not proper. The parties were allowed to adduce evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal passed Ext. P6 award holding that the 2nd respondent was innocent of the charges against him and ordered his reinstatement with back wages and without break of service and also held T.P. Varghese guilty of the misconduct alleged and rejected his claim. The award has been notified in Gazette No. 19 dated 13 -5 -1980. The company is aggrieved by the preliminary finding Ext. P4 and the award in so far as it relates to 2nd respondent. The Trade Union is aggrieved by the award -in so far as it relates to Sri T.P. Varghese.

(3.) THE other reason accepted by the Tribunal to hold that the domestic enquiry was not properly conducted was that the presence of the General Manager during the enquiry had an inhibiting effect on the conduct of the case by the employee. There was a case for the employees that they had been threatened not to cross examine the Executive Director, But this was not accepted by the Tribunal. The Executive Director gave elaborate evidence during his chief -examination. In fact bulk of the chief -examination was by way of an affidavit. The General Manager examined as M.W. 1 frankly conceded that the cross -examination lasted only a few minutes. It has to be remembered that the chief -examination contained very important aspects which required cross -examination. From these circumstances, the Tribunal drew inference that circumstances existed which inhibited a proper cross -examination. It is possible that another authority might take a different view in the matter. But that is no reason to upset the conclusion of the Tribunal. It cannot be said that the inference drawn by the Tribunal was perverse. From the two circumstances mentioned above the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry was not properly conducted. I am not satisfied that this finding is vitiated by any error of law apparent on the record. The challenge against Ext. P4, therefore, fails.