M GUNASEELAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 9262 of 1997 dated 6. 1. 2006, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.

(2.) THE case of the appellant/writ petitioner is that he was employed as Cleaner in the Canteen in the second respondent Company from the year 1972 on temporary basis and he was made permanent on 30. 12. 1986. On 16. 2. 1990, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner under clause 13 (4) of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company stating that the petitioner has stolen a bicycle belonging to a co-employee by name Santhanakrishnan on 14. 2. 1990 at about 1. 30 a. m. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 21. 2. 1990 and denied the charges. Another charge memo was issued on 8. 3. 1990 alleging that the appellant/writ petitioner threatened the co-employee, for which also the appellant/writ petitioner submitted his explanation on 9. 3. 1990 and denied the charge. Having not satisfied with the explanations, a domestic enquiry was conducted in respect of the said charges. The management examined five witnesses on its side and the appellant was also examined. Appellant was given the assistance of a co-employee. On 26. 4. 1990, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that both the charges levelled against the appellant/writ petitioner have been proved and based on the proven charges, appellant/writ petitioner was dismissed from service by the second respondent from 6. 7. 1990. The appellant/writ petitioner raised a dispute as the conciliation efforts failed, the appellant/writ petitioner moved the Labour Court under Section 2a (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the same was tried as I. D. No. 697 of 1991. In the claim petition the appellant prayed for reinstatement with backwages. The Labour Court found that the punishment imposed against the appellant was excessive and the theft of the cycle of a co-employee is an ignorable offence and ordered to pay Rs. 25,000/- as lumpsum payment in lieu of reinstatement and backwages. Being aggrieved by the said award dated 20. 12. 1995 passed by the Labour Court, the appellant filed W. P. No. 9262 of 1997 before this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 6. 1. 2006, as against which the present writ appeal has been preferred.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner at the time of arguments submitted that the writ petition filed by the appellant was earlier allowed by the learned single Judge on 21. 9. 2004 and on appeal it was set aside on the ground that the second respondent Management was not heard while passing the order and the Division Bench remitted the matter for passing fresh orders and after remittance, now the writ petition is dismissed by order dated 6. 1. 2006 and the same is unsustainable. The learned counsel also submitted that the appellant/writ petitioner has taken the cycle of a co-employee only on mistaken identity and the same was handed over to its owner/co-employee on the next day and therefore the occurrence having took place on mistake of fact, without any evil motive, the management ought not to have framed the charge and dismissed the appellant/writ petitioner from service.