SURENDRAN Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is for quashing Ext. P3 award dated 31st May 1976 in Industrial Dispute No. 26 of 1974 passed by the first respondent, Industrial Tribunal, Calicut, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal. The petitioner who entered service as a clerk under the second respondent the Karayavattom Service Cooperative Society Ltd., No. F. 793, Karayavattom P.O., Trichur District, later became its Secretary in 1967. On 27th January 1973 the President of the second respondent Society passed an order suspending the petitioner from service; later a charge sheet was also issued to him on 27th February 1973. The specific charge reads as follows:-

(2.) The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal did not exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under S.11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which reads as follows:

(3.) Now turning to the facts of the case, the Tribunal has not accepted the case of the petitioner that a proper enquiry was not conducted on the basis of his plea that he did not get reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence or to cross examine the witnesses examined on the side of the second respondent. Placing reliance on Exts. M1 and M1(a) endorsement, the Tribunal took the view that the petitioner voluntarily abstained from the enquiry proceedings, and after the enquiry, even when the management issued notice to show cause why action should not be taken on the basis of the finding of the enquiry, he did not raise the contention that he did not get sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence. On those reasonings the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no substance in the contention that no proper enquiry was conducted. The submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is that even when the Tribunal was satisfied that a proper enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer, it had also a statutory duty to satisfy itself as to whether the conclusions reached by the enquiry officer were supported by legal evidence, and in that regard it failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. I find force in this contention raised by the counsel as there is no indication that it had applied its mind to decide the question as to whether there was evidence to support the finding entered by the enquiry officer. The counsel for the petitioner would contend that Ext. M6 report marked before the Tribunal did not contain the statements stated to have been recorded from the witnesses examined on the side of the management. The counsel for the second respondent has submitted that the statements recorded from the witnesses were really before the Tribunal. Even assuming that to be so, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner has to be upheld as it is fairly clear that the Tribunal did not attempt to satisfy itself whether, on the materials placed before the enquiry officer, he (the enquiry officer) was justified in concluding that the charge against the petitioner was proved.