GURUSWAMY M Vs. P O LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge, by which, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant at the relevant time was in the service of the respondent. Two enquiries came to be inflicted against him on account of his misconduct. He has been found guilty in one of the enquiries while the other was found by the Labour Court not in keeping with the principles of natural justice. However, in the enquiry in which he was found guilty, the enquiry officer had held firstly that the employee had not handed over the stock list as on January 31, 1979 to the society and had suppressed the same. He secondly found that he had sent the goods by wrongful means to the retail section without showing in the books of account and effected the sales without bills. Thirdly, he found that certain goods were kept in a bureau in his custody without showing them in the books of account and when he was asked about it, he gave a false explanation. These are the findings regarding the first three charges. The fourth charge was that he had sent the finished bed sheets to the retail section of the society without permission, with a view to replace the bed sheets taken from the retail section under suspense. The matter was taken to the Labour Court and the punishment of dismissal having been given by the management, the Labour Court found in the enquiry in respect of the above charges was in keeping with the principles of natural justice and that all opportunities were given to the appellant to defend himself. The Labour Court, however, came to the conclusion that the punishment of dismissal was excessive and it would have deprived the petitioner/appellant of all the terminal benefits and therefore ultimately the Labour Court converted the dismissal into a simple discharge, so as to enable the appellant/petitioner to get back his terminal benefits.

(2.) This matter was challenged before the learned single Judge and it was tried to be argued before the learned single Judge that the Labour Court had erred in accepting the findings given by the enquiry officer and that the findings of the Labour Court were perverse. Learned single Judge has dismissed the petition predominantly holding that it was beyond his jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution to look afresh into the findings of fact, which had practically been finalised by the Labour Court. Learned Judge found that the charges, which were found to be proved were substantiated on the basis of the materials available before the enquiry officer and the Labour Court had independently examined the materials available before the enquiry officer. Learned single Judge observes as follows:

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant very forcefully argues that the Labour Court bad erred in arriving at the factual findings and that there was a total non-application of mind (sic) on the part of the Labour Court. For example, she relied on the findings on charge No. 4 wherein the enquiry officer had absolved the worker of charge No. 4, yet, the Labour Court had found him guilty. Charge No. 4, as it originally stood, was as follows: