SPENCER AND CO LTD Vs. B VAJRAVELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records connected with T. S. E. No. 25 of 1986 on the file of the second respondent, namely, Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals), Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, and to quash the order dated 1st June 1987.

(2.) THE facts which give rise to the filing of the writ petition can be briefly stated as follows : The first respondent joined the services of the writ petitioner on 6th September 1950 as a clear and in 1986 he was working as Pay Officer. By an order dated 23rd May 1986 his services were terminated because the writ-petitioner-company had lost confidence in him. It is seen that the work of the first respondent includes disbursement of wages as per pay bills prepared by the computer to the workmen and also payment of over-time, gratuity and compensation to them as Pay Officer. One of the employees working under the first respondent, namely, Ratan, produced vouchers bearing the dates 30th April, 2nd May and 5th May, 1986, along with other records, as a result of which he claimed that over-time was due to certain employees. The claim was placed before the then Chief Finance Executive who sanctioned the same. The said Ratan also obtained payment of cash from the cashier, although the fact remains that no over-time was at all carried out as alleged by the said Ratan. Thereafter it was found out that Ratan has made false claim. According to the writ petitioner, in spite of the above fact being known to the first respondent, he did not bring the same to the notice of his superiors at the earliest point of time. In the meantime Ratan, who has been attending duty throughout, submitted a leave application dated 13th May 1986 for the period from 6th May 1986 to 12th May 1986, wherein the first respondent endorsed that the leave may be sanctioned, although the fact remains that till that period, Ratan had reported for work and actually worked. Thereupon the entries were reversed in the attendance register which document was also admitted in the sloe custody of the first respondent. On 13th May 1986 Ratan returned the money which was unlawfully drawn by him from the company and it was received by the cashier. The petitioner-company felt that in view of the happenings in the pay-section, over which the first respondent was the chief, it could no longer repose any confidence in the first respondent and after obtaining the views of the first respondent discharged him from service by issuance of one month's salary in lieu of notice.

(3.) THE said order of termination was challenged by the first respondent before the second respondent by way of appeal on the ground that the los of confidence on him cast a stigma on him and that since no enquiry was held, the order should be set aside. But, the writ petitioner contended that this is a case of termination on the ground of loss of confidence and that it would not amount to a case of misconduct as alleged. Further, the termination of service on the ground of loss of confidence would come under 'reasonable cause' as contemplated under S. 41 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act.