P K VARUGHESE AND SONS Vs. VACCO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the employer of T. U. Vacco, the Respondent No. 1. In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner impugns the order of the appellate authority under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1968 (the "act" for brevity) in S. A. 24/1985 made under S. 18 (2) of the aforesaid Act whereunder the Authority granted reinstatement to the Respondent No. 1, backwages and compensation.

(2.) THE Respondent No. 1 was an Accountant in the Petitioner's establishment from 1-4-1982 to 19-1-1985, on which date he was relieved from employment. This order was withdrawn as it was found to be erroneous. THEreafter disciplinary proceedings were initiated. THE Respondent No. 1 was found guilty of as many as seven charges. THE services of the Respondent No. 1 were terminated on 10-4-1985. THE Appellate Authority has found that the domestic enquiry was conducted in accordance with law but he found that the charges against the Respondent No. 1 related to making erroneous entries in the accounts books. THE erasures and overwritings were innocent and no advantage was drawn by the Respondent No. 1 from such entries. It was not the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent No. 1 made the entries and erasures dishonestly. THE charges were of trivial nature and were mistakes not amounting to misconduct. Secondly, he found that the erroneous entries in the accounts books were made in 1982-83. Disciplinary proceedings commenced in 1985 on the basis of the stale accusations. THE Appellate Authority therefore held that the mistakes were not serious enough to warrant punishment. He made two orders: a) Reinstatement with continuity of services with back wages from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement. b) If the Petitioner did not reinstate the Respondent No. 1, he was directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement in addition to the amount of back wages.

(3.) THE scrutiny by the Appellate Authority of the whole evidence and determination of the guilt or innocence of the employee is an imperative safeguard against arbitrary dismissal or dismissal for acts which do not constitute misconduct. For instance, where an employee is dismissed for writing the accounts in shabby handwriting or in an untidy manner, it cannot be said that the Appellate Authority cannot consider whether such acts provide reasonable cause or amount to misconduct. It is for this reason that the Appellate Authority has been granted the powers to "dismiss the appeal or direct the reinstatement of the employee. . . . . . . ". Reinstatement cannot be granted or finding about misconduct cannot be affirmed without going into the evidence.