WORKMEN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Award of the Tribunal in I.D.No.83 of 1985 which was raised by the petitioner on behalf of one P.Achuthankutty, who was dismissed from service by the second respondent, is under challenge.

(2.) The reason for the dismissal was production of a bogus bill for Rs.550/- to indicate that the petitioner had transported goods from Madhya Pradesh to Kerala. An enquiry was conducted after show cause notice and in the enquiry, it was found that the petitioner was guilty. The petitioner had pleaded before the Enquiry Officer that he had transported the goods through a private lorry and not through New Haryana Transport Company, whose name was found in the bogus bill. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the materials on record, found that though the dismissal is not justified, the workman was not entitled to reinstatement and attendant benefits, but an award of compensation equivalent to two years emoluments was awarded. Against that the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the incident alleged to have taken place, was in the year 1977. The enquiry was in the year 1983 and therefore, the delay itself vitiates the enquiry. When the New Haryana Transport Company had not been examined, there was no justification to conclude that the bill in question was a bogus bill and further once the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the dismissal was not justified, it ought not to have denied to the workman the relief of reinstatement together with backwages. According to the learned counsel, the findings of the Tribunal are totally perverse and must be set aside.