KULLAMMAL Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE correctness of the order dated 18.12.2003 in W.P.No.2244 of 1997 dismissing the writ petition is canvassed in this appeal by the appellants. One C.N. Kannan filed writ petition challenging the award dated 14.2.1996 made in I.D.No.576 of 1993 dismissing his claim and upholding the order dated 20.8.1990 dismissing him from service of the second respondent. During the pendency of the writ petition, the delinquent employee died and his legal representatives - the appellants were brought on record.

(2.) THE material facts of the case are that one C.N. Kannan, since deceased, had joined the service of the second respondent in the year 1956 as nominal muster roll employee and gradually promoted as Lineman in the year 1980. On 3.1.1989, he was issued a charge memo containing four charges: "Charge No.1: Thiru.Kannan Lineman has received cheques amounting to Rs.42,880/- as payment for work done by him in Pudupalayam, Naidumangalam and Polur Section as a contractor, when he was actually working as Linemen in Tamilnadu Electricity Board, and when he has not done any contract work and knowing fully well that this is a bogus payment he has accepted the payments. This is a misconduct as per 30(iv) of the Standing Orders in respect of workmen other than those engaged in clerical work. (applicable to him.). Charge No.2: Thiru.C.N.Kannan, Lineman has allowed his sons, Tvl.K.Sivaprakasam, K.Chandrasekaran and K.Veerapandian, his brother-in-law K.Karunakaran and Son-in-law Thiru. R. Selvam and the brother-in-law of his first son Tvl. K. Palani and K. Elumalai to work as contractors and to receive the payments to the tune of Rs.4.48 lakhs from Tamilnadu Electricity Board for the works not carried out by them knowing fully well that the payments are bogus and he has included and allowed his sons, brother-in-law and son-in-law to receive the payments. He has not intimated to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board that his close relatives are working as contractors, which acts constitute a misconduct under Sections 30(iv) and (xi) of Standing orders in respect of workman other than those engaged in clerical work. Charge No.3: Thiru. Kannan, Lineman has received the Measurement Books No.688 A from Central Office, on 27.12.86, producing the bogus letter of indent prepared by Thiru. M. Subramanian. On that date C.N. Kannan was working as Lineman/Pudupalayam. But in the indent it was mentioned that Thiru. C.N. Kannan is working as Lineman/Polur. Thus Thiru Kannan colluded with Thiru. M. Subramanian, Assistant Engineer in preparing a bogus letter of indent for Measurement Book. This book has been utilised to prepare bogus hand receipts, in favour of Tvl. K. Selvam, V. Rajendran, V. Murugan who are all bogus contractors, for a value of Rs.2,981/-.This constitutes a misconduct as per standing order 30(IV) in respect of workman other than those engaged in clerical works. Charge No.4: Thiru Kannan, Lineman, Pudupalayam was allocated the work of strengthening the line work in Pudupalayam area on 27.12.86. But he has gone to Central Office on 27.12.86 and received the Measurement Book No.688-A after giving acknowledgement to the Central Office as Lineman/C&I/Polur. This constitutes a misconduct under Standing Order 30(iv) in respect of workmen other than those engaged in clerical work." After due enquiry, by order dated 20.8.1990, he was dismissed from service for the proved charges. On failure of conciliation, the dismissed employee raised a claim before the Labour Court - the first respondent in I.D.No.576 of 1993. THE Labour Court finding that the enquiry was not justifiable, set aside the enquiry, but allowed the parties to adduce evidence. On consideration of the evidence and materials, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the deceased Kannan was guilty of the charges and declined to interfere with the order of dismissal from service. THE deceased Kannan challenged the award of the Labour Court by filing writ petition, which went in vain. Hence the present appeal.

(3.) THE first charge leveled against the deceased employee is receipt of charges for illegal payment to the tune of Rs.42,880/-. THE delinquent employee himself had admitted the receipt and encashment of the cheques through his Savings Bank Account in Indian Bank, Tiruvannamalai Branch. THE explanation of the delinquent that he has handed over the amount to one Subramanian, the Assistant Engineer has been found against him by the Labour Court from the admitted conduct of the appellant. THE Labour Court has also taken into account the report of the Vigilance Inspector, who was examined as M.W.1. THE Vigilance Inspector was assigned with the task of inquiring into the fraudulent transaction on account of which several lakhs of rupees were syphoned off from the Electricity Board. M.W.1 has filed Ex.M.4, a detailed report of the enquiry conducted by him. He has been extensively cross examined by the delinquent.