G. KUMAR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition challenges the dismissal of the Petition filed under Sec. 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The case of the Petitioner is that he was working as a gardener on permanent basis from 10/5/1989 to 1/10/2010. His last drawn pay was Rs.6,256..00 He was charged with committing theft of articles belonging to the management on 29/8/2009. A Charge Memo was issued and a detailed Domestic Enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer filed a report that the charges have been proved against the Petitioner. Notice was given on the Enquiry Report and the Petitioner's further explanation was not accepted. Consequently, he was terminated from service on 1/10/2010. On filing Industrial Dispute in I.D. No.89 of 2011, the Petitioner raised a preliminary issue challenging the procedure adopted by the Second Respondent at the time of Domestic Enquiry. On behalf of the Petitioner Exs.W1 to W8 were marked and on behalf of the Respondent Exs.M1 to M4 were marked. Being satisfied with the manner in which the Enquiry was conducted, the Labour Court held against the Petitioner and came to a conclusion that the Domestic Enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of law and there was sufficient compliance with the Principles of Natural Justice. This order was passed on 8/6/2012. Subsequently, the main Industrial Dispute was taken up for Enquiry and by Order, dtd. 16/7/2012, the Industrial Dispute in I.D. No.89 of 2011 came to be dismissed. Challenging the same the present Writ Petition has been filed.

(2.) Mr. S.T. Varadharajulu, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Labour Court had not applied its mind to two crucial facts, first is that no Police Complaint was given against the Petitioner. He would elaborate on this point and would submit that had the theft actually taken place, the Management would have given a Complaint and the failure to lodge a Complaint belies the case of the Respondent. The second point he would urge is that there is no proof that the materials, which were recovered from the vehicle of the Petitioner belong to the Management and therefore the charge of theft is not proved.

(3.) According to him, these are two crucial facts to which the Labour Court had not applied its mind and therefore he would plead that the Writ Petition be allowed, the order of the Labour Court be set aside and the Petitioner be directed to be reinstated with continuity of service.