BABY VIJAYAN Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the appellant. Appellant is the wife of the deceased petitioner in the original petition who is impleaded as the legal representative of the petitioner in the Original Petition. The Original Petition was filed praying for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P6 award of the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam by which the deceased employee who was found guilty and was dismissed from service of the Indian Overseas Bank and for other reliefs.

(2.) The deceased employee was given a charge sheet on 16-12-1983 for misconduct conducted by him. A domestic enquiry, was ordered into.the charges. The enquiry was conducted by the disciplinary authority. The management examined the witnesses and produced documents to prove the allegations against the appellant's husband. The deceased employee have neither examined any witness or produced any documents to substantiate his defence even though opportunity was given to him. The Enquiry Officer, after considering the evidence, found the appellant's husband guilty of the misconduct which are 'major misconducts' in terms of Para.17.5(J) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 14-12-1966 between the bank and its workmen as amended upto date. Thereafter petitioner in the Original Petition was given show cause notice by the disciplinary authority and he was also given an opportunity of being heard. The disciplinary authority, after considering the entire matter passed an order of dismissal of the appellant's husband from the services of the bank. The appeal filed by the deceased employee before the appellate authority was also dismissed and the order of the disciplinary authority was confirmed. Thereupon the appellant's husband raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam and before the Tribunal, the employee challenged the validity of the enquiry. By a preliminary order the Industrial Tribunal held that the enquiry was proper and valid and further found on the question of punishment that the punishment of dismissal imposed on the employee is not excessive or unjustifiable by award dated 6-7-1990. Challenging the said award passed by the Industrial Tribunal the employee filed the original petition to quash the award of the Industrial Tribunal. According to the employee he was not guilty of any lapses and there was no basis for the allegations and the enquiry had been held by the Enquiry Officer in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that the Tribunal, considering the past service records of the employee ought to have imposed a lesser punishment for it had come in evidence in respect of the transaction that the bank had sustained any loss. The original petition was resisted by the bank. According to the bank the enquiry was conducted in compliance with the principles of natural justice and the employee was given proper opportunity of being heard. During the pendency of the writ petition the employee-petitioner in the O.P. died and his wife, the present appellant was impleaded vide order in C.M.P.23545/97 dated 20-8-1997. The learned Judge after considering the materials placed before him held that the order of the Industrial Tribunal is not liable to be interfered with and that even though the punishment of dismissal was made for serious misconduct, the employee was given full gratuity and therefore there is no jurisdictional error or error apparent on the face of the record in the award of the Industrial Tribunal.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned single Judge, the wife of the deceased employee filed the above appeal and has reiterated the contentions raised in the Original Petition. We have heard counsel appearing on either side and gone through the entire pleadings and also the enquiry reports and of the judgment impugned in this writ appeal.