MANAGEMENT NORTH ARCOT ADI-DRAVIDAR WELFARE SCHOOL TEACHERS COOPERATIVE Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Society, challenging the award of the first respondent Labour Court, dated 11. 6. 2004, made in I. D. No. 4 of 1997.

(2.) IT has been stated that the second respondent was working as a Clerk in the petitioner society, from 4. 4. 1990 to 14. 10. 1993. While so, a charge memo, dated 30. 8. 1993, had been issued to him, alleging that he had caused certain loss to the petitioner Society by failing to update the accounts maintained by him. An enquiry had been ordered, on 26. 12. 1993. Thereafter, another charge memo, dated 27. 12. 1993, had been issued to the second respondent alleging that he had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 44,491/ -. The explanation submitted by the second respondent, on 19. 10. 1993, had not been considered by the management of the petitioner Society. Another charge memo, dated 7. 1. 1994, had been issued to the second respondent alleging that he had caused the loss of certain articles when the office of the petitioner Society was shifted.

(3.) THE contention of the second respondent was that he was not guilty of the charges levelled against him. It is only the special officer who was responsible for the loss of the articles during the shifting of the office. Without taking any action on the three charge memos issued to the second respondent, he was directed to pay Rs. 3,493. 95 for the missing articles. Thus, he had been prevented from inspecting the documents to prepare an explanation for the charges levelled against him, in order to protect the then special officer till he had retired from service. Further, on 30. 3. 1994, the second respondent was ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 44,491/- to the petitioner Society to offset the loss said to have been caused to the Society. Principles of natural justice had not been followed during the enquiry conducted against the second respondent, with regard to the charges levelled against him. Since the second respondent could not participate in the said enquiry he was set ex parte and a report, dated 17. 8. 1994, had been submitted by the enquiry officer, based on which the second respondent was dismissed from service, by an order, dated 12. 10. 1994.