MANAGEMENT OF M/S. ANGLO FRENCH TEXTILES LTD., PONDICHERRY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, PONDICHERRY AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal arises out of the order passed by Mohan J. in W. P. No. 1626 of 1980 dated 16- 6-1980. In the writ petition the management of Messrs. Anglo French Textiles Ltd., Pondicherry, sought to quash the award passed by the Labour Court, Pondicherry in I. D. No. 8 of 1978, on 20-7-1979. The second respondent herein is said to have committed heft of a cloth bundle from the appellant mill. In the domestic enquiry relating to this incident, it was found that the charge levelled against the second respondent was proved, and he was consequently dismissed from service. When the matter was referred to the Labour Court, in I. D. No 8 of 1978, the Labour Court, after elaborately considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the order of dismissal was not justified and that the second respondent was entitled to be reinstated in service. Against this award the management filed the writ petition in question. The learned Judge, observing that the management had not proved that the cloth bundle did belong to the mill and that the workman had been honourably acquitted in the criminal proceedings instituted against him, dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said decision, the present writ appeal has been preferred.

(2.) Mr. Marthandam, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the standard of proof required for the purpose of the domestic tribunal giving a finding is not of such a high degree as that required before a Labour Court or a court of law. According to the learned counsel, a clear inference can be drawn from the evidence on record that the second respondent had committed theft of the cloth bundle from the appellant mill. Among other decisions cited by him, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. v. Management, 1973 1 LLJ 278 at p. 295 : (1973 Lab I C 851 at pp. 864, 865), wherein the Supreme Court has observed :

(3.) Thus, it is clear from the above observations of the Supreme Court that, after the introduction of S. 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the appellate authority is at liberty, not only to consider whether the finding of misconduct recorded by an employer is correct, but also to differ from i such finding, if a proper case is made out. As far as the present case is concerned, on the side of the management M. W. 1 is examined. He did not say that the cloth bundle belonged to the appellant mill. It is also clear from the evidence on record that the occurrence took place outside the mills, that three persons were involved in the occurrence and that M. Ws. 2 and 4 have not witnessed the occurrence personally. Hence the entire case against the second respondent rested upon the statement of M. W. 1, who, as already stated, did not say that the cloth bundle belonged to the Mill. The Labour Court, after appraising the evidence on record, has categorically found that proof of the charge against the second respondent is wanting in this case, and that, though there is a serious doubt against the second respondent in respect of the alleged occurrence, mere suspicion cannot take the place of proof. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Labour Court has correctly appraised the evidence on record. As a matter of fact, there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the cloth bundle in question belonged to the mill. When such a basic fact has not been proved, it is very difficult to come to the conclusion that it was the second respondent herein who had committed theft of the cloth bundle. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the acquittal of the second respondent in the criminal proceedings has weighed with the Labour Court as also the learned Judge, on the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be accepted. Even apart from the result of the criminal proceedings, the Labour Court has clearly come to the conclusion that the appellant have not established their case against the second respondent regarding the theft alleged. Under these circumstances, we are in complete agreement with the finding of the learned Judge and that of the Labour Court. There is absolutely no miscarriage of justice or any other error apparent on the face of the record for us to take a different view. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.