P. CHERIAN URUMIS Vs. THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions are filed challenging the award of the Labour Court in ID No.49 of 1993 dated 12.7.1995. W.P.(C) No.12129 of 2008 is filed by the management, the Hindalco Industries Ltd. and W.P.(C) No 18148 of 2008 is filed by the workman to the extent the Labour Court limited the back wages to 25%. The parties and documents referred to in this judgment are as described in W.P.(C) No. 18148 of 2008 filed by the workman.

(2.) The petitioner was working as Fitter Grade I in the 2nd respondent Company. It is the common case of both sides that at the time of joining the company, all the Fitters are given a set of tools and they were allotted a locker for keeping the tools locked. The key of the lockers are to be kept by the Fitters.

(3.) According to the management there were a series of complaints as to missing of tools. Therefore an inspection was conducted in the company. In the inspection, the security officer found that several tools were kept in the locker of the petitioner which were not supplied to him and not included in the list of tools supplied to him. Thereupon Ext.P1 memo of charges was issued to him on 14.9.1991. The allegation was that when the security officer checked the personal tool locker of petitioner to verify its contents in the presence of the petitioner, Sri. N.K. John, General Foreman, Mechanical Maintenance, and Sri. K.V. Sebastian, Security Guard, it was found that tools and other items belonging to the company other than those issued to the petitioner for his day to day work were seen removed and kept inside his personal locker. Accordingly a list of tools found there were prepared which the petitioner signed in their presence. Therefore, it was alleged that the petitioner deliberately and unauthorisedly removed the listed tools and other items and thereby committed grave mistake of theft of company property, which if proved would be a major offence under Standing Order 26b(iii). The petitioner was directed to show cause against the proposed disciplinary action.