COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A workman employed as a Machinist in Cochin Shipyard Limited, a public sector undertaking, was caught by the security personnel when he was trying to take out surreptitiously, 1.75 litres of oil, in the tool box of his scooter. He admitted his guilt to the security personnel and gave a written statement to that effect. Thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and a charge sheet was issued to him. He submitted his explanation denying the charges. Though he earlier admitted the theft committed by him, he denied the same in his reply. Charge memo reads as follows:

(2.) This award was challenged by the union and management. According to the union, though enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, the misconduct was not proved and findings of the enquiry officer were not correct and that aspect was not considered by the Tribunal and he is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages. According to the management, once the misconduct of theft is proved, award of reinstatement by the Tribunal is wholly illegal. Considering the nature of misconducts, the management has lost confidence in him and the Tribunal exceeded the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act') in interfering with the punishment imposed by the management. Learned single Judge found that the findings of the enquiry officer was correct and misconduct was proved. But, learned single Judge observed as follows:

(3.) It is the contention of the workman that though enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, findings are not correct and this aspect was not considered by the Tribunal and the learned single Judge. According to the workman, there is no evidence in this case to show that he has committed theft of oil as alleged. He had purchased oil from P.K. v. Transport and Agencies, HPC Depot on 3-10-1-994 as perExt.CE2 bill. The Tribunal found as follows: