K K KURIYAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3913 of 1977, who sought a writ of certiorari to quash an order of Government (1st respondent) in G.O.Rt. No. 332, Employment and Labour Department, dated 19th February, 1974 declining to make a reference under section10(1) of the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 for adjudication by the Labour Court.

(2.) Briefly stated, the case of the appellant is to the following effect. While the appellant was serving the second respondent as Assistant Cashier, certain charges were framed against him alleging that he had misappropriated sale amounts of scrap to the tune of Rs. 2017.00 and when questioned by the Assistant Manager, he had made good only a sum of Rs. 500.00 and failed to deposit the balance of the amount. The appellant's explanation to the charge memo was not accepted and a domestics enquiry was held and the Enquiry Officer gave a finding that the charge was proved. Based on that finding the appellant was removed from service. The appellant raised an industrial dispute and conciliation proceedings were conducted by Labour Officer IV, Madras. The conciliation proceedings ended in failure and there upon a failure report, was sent to the Government. The appellant sought a reference of the dispute for adjudication by the Labour Court but by the impugned order dated 19th February, 1974, the Government declined to refer the issue for adjudication. Challenging the correctness of the order, the appellant filed W.P. No. 3913 of 1977 and sought the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Government. A learned single Judge of this Court declined to issue a writ of certiorari on the ground that there is no material on record to show that the impugned order of Government is vitiated on account of reliance on extraneous considerations or non-consideration of relevant materials or by mis-direction in law. Against the dismissal of the Writ petition, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) Mr. Fenn Walter, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned single Judge was not right in holding that the order of Government was not vitiated by non-consideration of relevant materials, because the Government has committed an error in holding that the appellant has not let in evidence during the enquiry to show that he had not received the amount alleged to have been misappropriated by him. The counsel invited our attention to the appellant's deposition in the domestic enquiry and his referring to the procedure that was being followed in the office of the 2nd respondent for receipt of cash towards sale of scrap, etc., and his categoric statement that the twenty bills, on which the management placed reliance, are not cash bills, but only bills issued at the first stage of the transaction without cash actually being received and as such, he is in no way liable to account for the sum claimed from him.