MANAKAVILAI PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is one and the same, these writ petitions are taken up together and disposed of by way of common order.

(2.) These writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned orders passed by the first respondent in I.D.No.52 of 2000, dated 12.07.2005 and in I.A.No.253 of 2008, dated 19.08.2011.

(3.) The case of the petitioner Management is that the second respondent was working as Clerk and also acting as in-charge Cashier in the petitioner Co-operative Bank Limited. During the service of the second respondent, it was found that he along with the then Secretary, Jewel Appraiser and Clerk, colluded and indulged in various misdeeds viz., fraud, misappropriation and breach of trust. For the said lapses, the petitioner Management issued a charge memo against the petitioner and conducted a domestic enquiry, after affording opportunity to the second respondent, dismissed the second respondent from service, on 22.09.1998. Simultaneously, surcharge proceedings were initiated against the second respondent. Further, criminal proceedings were also initiated against the second respondent and the criminal cases are pending against him before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.11, Tirunelveli. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal dated 22.09.1998, the second respondent raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.52 of 2000 before the Labour Court, Tirunelveli. The Labour Court passed an ex-parte award on 12.07.2005. Taking advantage of the ex-parte order, the second respondent filed C.P. No.36 of 2010 before the first respondent, claiming a sum of Rs.25,73,300/-. Thereafter, in order to safeguard the interest of the Co-operative Bank, the petitioner filed a restoration petition before the Labour Court, Tirunelveli with a petition to condone the delay of 972 days. The said Interlocutory Application was numbered as I.A.No.253 of 2008 in I.D.No.52 of 2000 and the Labour Court dismissed the condone delay petition in I.A.No.253 of 2008, on the ground that the delay of 972 days is not condonable and the Labour Court has no power to entertain the petition. Challenging the same, the present writ petitions have been field.