RANGASAMI S MGMT OF VELLANDIVALASU WEAVERS CO OPERATIVE PRODUCTION AND SALES SOCIETY EDAPPADI Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT SALEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Finally a plea of the workman that the punishment was too harsh and therefore that it should be modified, was also rejected by the High Court. (Para 15) These two writ petitions arise out of the award, dated June 30, 1994, passed in Industrial Dispute No. 1 of 1992 holding that the non-employment of the petitioner in W.P. No. 562 or 1995 hereinafter called the petitioner, was not justified, that however, he was not entitled for reinstatement, but would be entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000 in lieu of reinstatement. Aggrieved against the said award, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 562 of 1995, while the second respondent-society in W.P. No. 562 of 1995 hereinafter called the second respondent filed W. P. No.2335 of 1995 aggrieved against that part of the award in granting payment of compensation.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the-impugned award are that the petitioner was employed as a packer in the second respondent- society, that on an audit conducted in the second respondentsociety in the month of June, 1976, shortage of textile goods and threads worth of Rs. 35,418.77 was found out, that the petitioner along with one Chinna Gounder, clerk of Erode unit of the second respondent-society was jointly held responsible for the textile stock of the second respondent-society, that both of them admitted their responsibility for the said deficit, that both of them were placed under suspension pending enquiry in the month of August, 1976, that criminal proceedings were launched against both the workmen and that while Sri Chinna Gounder pleaded guilty and suffered a sentence, the petitioner contested the criminal case and was ultimately convicted and sentenced by way of imprisonment till rising of the Court by the trial Court on August 31, 1979 apart from fine of Rs. 250 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one more month, that the verdict of the trial Court was ultimately set aside by the appellate Cout on November 14, 1979 in C.A. No. 120 of 1979.

(3.) The petitioner was issued with a show-cause notice under Exhibit W10 on December 26, 1978, that the petitioner submitted his explanation to the said show-cause notice on January 22, 1979, that an enquiry was ordered to be held by the second respondent-society and by notice dated December 26, 1978, the petitioner was called upon to appear before the sub-committee on January 12, 1979 at 11 A.M., that though the petitioner appeared before the sub-committee on January 12, 1979, he walked out of the enquiry stating that the statement submitted by him can be taken as his evidence and the sub-committee can proceed with the enquiry on that basis. On behalf of the management witnesses were examined and the sub-committee also submitted its finding to the second respondent-society. Based on the findings of the sub committee, by proceedings, dated May 17, 1979, the second respondent-society dismissed the petitioner from service by invoking bye-law 10(a) of the Special bye-laws applicable to the second respondent-society.