MANOHARAN R Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT SALEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the award, dated November 25, 1994, in I.D. No. 98 of 1992 on the file of the first respondent to quash the same and to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service, back-wages and all attendant benefits.

(2.) The short facts which are sufficient for the disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner was employed as a conductor on January 1, 1980. On July 17, 1983 he was apprehended by the second respondent and it was found that the petitioner tampered with the records of the Corporation, such as invoice sheet, ticket books by having altered the tickets of 0.75 paise denomination. The allegation was that Ticket No. Z-54984 to 54989 have not been accounted for and he has also altered the invoice sheet. By this method the petitioner misappropriated the money of the Corporation and caused loss to the Corporation. A charge- memo, dated August 17, 1983, was issued. The petitioner submitted his explanation on August 22, 1983. He had admitted that he had altered the serial numbers of the tickets and also the invoice sheet. But he pleaded that the mistake had happened on account of his illness on July 17, 1983. He had also assured that he would be careful in future and that such mistaken will not be repeated again. As the explanation was found to be unsatisfactory, the petitioner was placed under suspension and due enquiry was held in which the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself. The petitioner was ultimately dismissed from service by order, dated December 2, 1983. As against the said order the petitioner had approached the first respondent in I.D. No. 98 of 1992. The Labour Court after considering the merits held that the charges were proved and also the punishment of removal from service was justified in the circumstances of the case. With the result, the order of dismissal was confirmed. Hence, the above writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly raises the issue of no proper consideration of the quantum of punishment as would arise under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, (hereinafter called the Act). Apart from stating that on that particular date, the petitioner was not doing well, learned counsel has not seriously challenged the finding of the guilt by the enquiry officer as well as the Labour Court. In fact, the petitioner himself has not seriously disputed in his own explanation as regards the erroneous entry in the invoice sheet as well as no proper accounting for five tickets.