TAMIL NADU BRICK AND TILE MANUFACTURERS INDUSTRIAL CO Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is preferred to quash the order of the first respondent, dated 28 Oct. 1983 in T. S. E. No. 1 of 1983. Petitioner establishment claims as follows Second respondent was employed by petitioner as assistant with effect from 1 Oct. 1979. He was transferred with two other employees to Nerkundram, where petitioner has got a diesel bunk. Second respondent was working as sales clerk and it was his duty to be in the custody of all the stocks of diesel and the cash realised from the sale of diesel. He was enjoined to report to the head office the shortage if any in the stock of diesel. During the period between 1 July 1980 and 29 Nov. 1980, shortages were noticed in the diesel bunk at Nerkundram and approximately the shortage was about 2200 litres of diesel. Hence, second respondent hereinafter called as "employee" was suspended with effect from 1 Dec. 1980. A charge memo, dated 12 Dec. 1980 was issued and after receiving his explanation and on holding of personal enquiry by the sub-committee on 19 Jan. 1981, he was removed from service by order, dated 22 April 1981. Thereupon he preferred an appeal to the Registrar of Industrial Co-operatives, Chepauk, Madras, which was rejected by him by order, dated 6 Nov. 1982. Thereafter, he preferred an appeal under S. 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, and by his order, dated 28 Oct. 1983, the first respondent set aside the order of termination and hence this writ petition is preferred by the establishment.

(2.) On behalf of the second respondent, it is claimed that there has been gross violation of principles of natural justice and that the so-called admission on 19 Jan. 1981 is no admission of guilt at all and, therefore, the appellate authority was not in order in setting aside the order of termination.

(3.) Sri B. R. Dolia, learned counsel for petitioner-establishment, contends that once the employee had made an admission that he had neither made note of the opening stock nor the closing stock it tantamounts to an admission of guilt committed during working hours, and having agreed to pay his portion of the loss fixed at Rs. 790/72, there was no need for any other elaborate enquiry or examination of witnesses. Still, when the establishment had examined one Gabriel, secretary of the society, and the disciplinary sub-committee during the personal enquiry conducted on 19 Jan. 1981 having extended a fair opportunity and thereby enabled the employee to cross-examine him and which he had acceded it is futile on the part of the employee to at all plead that principles of natural justice had been violated. He would state that the Commissioner had committed an error in stating that the employee had not been given an adequate opportunity to represent his case, nor to cross-examine the witnesses examined against him. At no point of time, he having asked for any opportunity to examine his witness and knowing quite well that he was participating in the personal hearing and having refrained from cross-examining the witness, there has been no failure of principles of natural justice. To this extent, Sri Dolia is correct because the employee had never made a grievance that he could not cross-examine the witnesses or that his request to examine witnesses had not been acceded to. But this would not help the management beyond this point, because there are other greater infirmities committed by it.