DIVAKARAN P R Vs. P O LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal challenges the order of the learned single Judge of this Court dated February 5, 1993, dismissing the writ petition No. 3557/1984 filed by the appellant herein for a writ of certiorari to quash the award made by the first respondent in I.D. No.241 of 1982.

(2.) The appellant who was working as a watch regulator in the second respondent- Management was served with the charge memo stating that he was guilty of misconduct. In the domestic enquiry he was found guilty. On the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the appellant was dismissed from service on November 2, 1981. Following his application under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication, of the issue relating to his non- employment. The same was taken on file by the Labour Court in I.D No. 241 of 1982 wherein a claim statement and counter statement were filed by the respective parties. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence both oral and documentary, held that the non-employment of the appellant was justified, and he was not entitled to the relief. Challenging the correctness of the Award of the Labour Court, the appellant filed a writ petition in W.P. 3557/1984. The learned single Judge after hearing the rival submissions and on careful scrutiny of the available materials, upheld the Award of the Labour Court. Aggrieved over the order of the learned single Judge, the appellant/employee has resorted to this appeal.

(3.) The case of the second respondent/management is that on June 30, 1981 at about 11.15 AM one Mr. Khaja Mohideen came to the watch room section and asked for the appellant, that Mr. Solomon, Manager of the Section asked Chatrapathi to call the appellant from his room; that the appellant came out and talked to Mr.Khaja Mohideen and then went inside the section, that on seeing Khaja Mohideen sitting, Solomon asked him what for he was waiting, that then only the said Khaja Mohideen informed Solomon that he gave a watch to the appellant for repair and adjustment, that Solomon asked why he gave the watch to the worker/appellant instead of giving it to him, that Khaja Mohideen replied that on two earlier occasions he had given the watch to the appellant for repairs; that Solomon immediately sent for the appellant, who came out with the watch of Mr. Khaja Mohideen, which was completely dismantled and that when the appellant was questioned by Solomon as to his conduct, the appellant had no reply.