MANAGEMENT Vs. T.S.INSPASEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st Additional Labour Court, Chennai relating to the award in I.D.No.727 of 2000 dated 18.04.2011 and quash the same.

(2.) The petitioner is a Co-operative Society, managed by an elected Board up to 25.05.2001, when a Special Officer was appointed to manage its affairs. The 1st respondent was working as a Secretary of the Society. The petitioner issued a charge memo dated 25.10.1999 to the 1st respondent while he was working as a Senior Assistant in the petitioner Society. The petitioner alleged that the 1st respondent forged loan documents in respect of One C.R.Baskaran and B.John and misappropriated a sum of Rs.20,000/- each of the loan document, totaling Rs.40,000/-. Not being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the 1st respondent, the petitioner ordered Domestic Enquiry and considering the report of the Enquiry Officer, the 1 st respondent was removed from service. The 1st respondent raised Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.727 of 2000 on the file of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent by the award dated 18.04.2011, ordered reinstatement of 1st respondent with continuity of service and other benefits with 25% back- wages. Against the said award, the petitioner Society has come out with the present Writ Petition.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the 2nd respondent did not follow the procedure and failed to consider first whether Domestic Enquiry conducted by the petitioner was fair and proper and if found that the Domestic Enquiry was not fair and proper, ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to let in evidence to support the charges leveled against the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent erred in relying on the statement given by the petitioner Management witness which is not corroborated by any documentary evidence leveled against the petitioner beyond any doubt. Having produced all the documents in the Domestic Enquiry, it is not necessary for the petitioner to produce the said documents before the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent failed to consider that C.R.Baskaran and B.John in whose loan account, the 1st respondent misappropriated Rs.20,000/- each, appeared before the Enquiry Officer and gave statement implicating the 1st respondent. The said statements were corroborated by the statements of two staff of the petitioner Society and 11 documents were marked in the Enquiry. The 1 st respondent did not appear for the enquiry and the 2nd respondent erred in holding that necessary documents were not furnished to the 1st respondent in the enquiry proceedings. The 1st respondent did not participate in the enquiry even though ample opportunity was given to him and did not cross-examine the witnesses of the petitioner. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Society, Ponneri conducted enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act and based on the said enquiry, an order was made in R.C.No.195 of 2003, dated 14.07.2003 for recovery of a sum of Rs.45,559/- with interest from the 1st respondent. The petitioner having lost confidence on the 1st respondent for his misappropriation of funds, removed him from service taking lenient view and paid all the terminal benefits even though the petitioner could have dismissed the 1st respondent from service and prayed for allowing the Writ Petition.