TAMILNADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KUMBAKONAM) LTD. Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the Management of a State owned Transport Corporation, has been filed challenging the order, dated 31.03.2004 in W.P.No.13896 of 1997, by which the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant Management questioning the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, rejecting the Approval Petition filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act), was dismissed.

(2.) The second respondent was working as a Conductor in the appellant Management and was issued a charge memo alleging that he received Rs.9/- from two passengers at the rate of Rs.4.50 paise each being the bus fare from Ramanathapuram to Mandapam, but were issued tickets for a value of Rs.1.90ps from Uchupuli to Mandapam; received Rs.4.90ps from five passengers each and issued tickets for lesser value of Rs.2.30ps. The second respondent was charged of attempting to misappropriate a sum of Rs.18.20ps, and retaining a sum of Rs.60.10ps over and above the collection amount in his cash bag. Though the second respondent did not submit his explanation to the charge, he participated in the domestic enquiry in which the Checking Inspector was examined as a Management witness, who was cross examined by the second respondent. The enquiry officer held the charges proved and a second show cause notice was issued to the second respondent calling for further explanation and the Appellant Management not being satisfied with the explanation offered, dismissed the second respondent from service.

(3.) The appellant Management filed an application before the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act, seeking for approval of the order of dismissal. The Industrial Tribunal by order dated 14.03.1997, dismissed the approval petition. The appellant Management challenged this order of the Industrial Tribunal in W.P.No.13896 of 1997, which was dismissed by order dated 31.03.2004 and challenging the concurrent findings, the appellant Management is before us by way of this Appeal.