MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order passed in ID No.546 of 1997 dated 31.8.2000 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same. The petitioner Corporation has filed the present writ petition challenging the award of the first respondent labour Court, dated 31.8.2000, made in I.D.No.546 of 1997, ordering reinstatement of the second respondent, with continuity of service, with 50% backwages, along with the other attendant benefits.

(2.) IT has been stated by the petitioner Corporation that the second respondent was dismissed from service, on 17.3.1993, for committing serious acts of misconduct in the petitioner Corporation. Even before the order of dismissal was passed, the conduct of the second respondent was not satisfactory. He has been punished for several acts of misconduct. However, in spite of the repeated warnings and punishments, the second respondent did not correct himself. He continued to be negligent in performing his duties and was disrespectful towards the other staff members and the members of the Management of the petitioner Corporation.

(3.) WITH regard to charge No.2, it has been stated that the total collection by way of sale of tickets, on 23.8.1992, was Rs.1338.90, but the cash found in the bag of the second respondent was only Rs.1,280.20. Even after deducting, the amount of Rs.20/- as expenses of the conductor and the stand bill of Rs.3.50/-, it should have been Rs.1303.72. Hence, the shortage of Rs.35.20 has been proved. Therefore, the enquiry officer, after analysing all the documents and the evidence available, had held that the charges had been proved. Therefore, there was no need for the labour Court to interfere with the well considered finding of the enquiry officer. The labour Court had failed to see that the petitioner Management had passed the dismissal order, on 17.3.1993 and the second respondent had raised the conciliation proceedings only, on 24.2.1997. The extraordinary delay of more than 4 years caused by the second respondent shows his lethargic attitude towards his duties. However, the labour Court had found that the domestic enquiry had been ordered based on the report of the checking inspector and it had also been found that the checking inspector did not know about the incident, directly. The labour Court had also found that no passengers were examined before the enquiry officer to prove the charges levelled against the second respondent delinquent employee, even though the second respondent had admitted the irregularity as he had countersigned the statement given by the passenger. Therefore, the award of the labour Court reinstating the second respondent in service, with 50% backwages and continuity of service, is not sustainable, as it is not supported by any material evidence.