G V RANGARAJAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G.V.Rangarajarv, the petitioner herein, has filed this Writ Petition seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent, viz, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.D. No. 284/85 and quash only that portion of the award dated 16.11.89 published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No. 19-B Part II, Section 2 dated 16-5-90 by which 75% backwages has been denied to the petitioner and directing, the second respondent to pay the full backwages together with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The facts that are required for the disposal of the Writ Petition are as follows : (a) The petitioner joined the services of the second respondent the Management of Coimbatore District Consumers Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd. in the year 1959. He rose up from ranks and was promoted as the Superintendent of the Village Shop Programme Department from 1979. From March, 1980, he was given additional charge of the Empties Section. He was also incharge of purchase of empty covers for packing of commodities. The total requirements of such empty covers were determined by the Section. In order to help the petitioner, two other Assistants by name Jaganathan and Natarajan were posted. (b) In the matter of placing orders by the Section, which was under the control of the petitioner with different parties, for the purchase of 17,00,000 covers for the year 1980-81, it was found that there was misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 1,06,104-33 of the Society's funds by making fictitious entries by the said two Assistants, in connivance with the petitioner. (c) In November, 1981, the petitioner and the two Assistants were suspended. After following the required formalities, the charges were framed against the delinquents, including the petitioner, with reference to the above embezzlement and falsification of records. After giving opportunity to the delinquents to give their - written explanation, the enquiry was held. (d) After enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report stating that the said Jaganathan and Natarajan, Assistants, joined together and misappropriated the said sum by fraudulent means and fabrication of records and that the petitioner Rangarajan had been used by the said two persons for this fraudulent act and that he was negligent and did not bestow his care expected of him for preventing such a huge loss to the Society due to the said misappropriation. (e) Based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner as well as the other two Assistants was dismissed from service. The petitioner aggrieved over the same, raised the industrial dispute before the first respondent-the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.D. No. 284/85. (f) After hearing the parties, the first respondent held that the enquiry was fair and proper and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were correct. However, the order of dismissal was set aside, and the Labour Court modified the punishment by directing the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and with 25 per cent backwages drawn by the petitioner at the time of his termination. (g) Aggrieved over this award directing for the reinstatement of the petitioner by setting aside the punishment of dismissal by the Labour Court, the Management of Coimbatore "District Consumers Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd, the second respondent herein, filed a separate writ petition in W.P. No. 17702/90. (h) The main ground urged in the said petition by the second resppndent herein that the dismissal order as against the petitioner ought not to have been disturbed, since there was no finding that the said order of dismissal was not justified.. (i) After hearing'the Counsel for the parties, I have disposed of the said Writ Petition in a separate order rejecting the said prayer and holding that the direction for reinstatement and for payment of 25 per cent backwages was perfectly correct and valid. (j) The present Writ Petition, i.e. W.P. No. 17022/91, having aggrieved over the denial of 75 per cent backwages, has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that the, petitioner ought to have been reinstated with full backwages and in the light of the finding that the charge of misappropriation was not proved against him. especially when there is no material to show that he was negligent in his duties and there is no specific charge for the same.

(3.) Mr. Ramasubramaniam, the learned , Counsel appearing for the petitioner, would, mainly contend that though the petitioner who was charged for the misappropriation, was found not guilty of the said charge by the Enquiry Officer but, unfortunately, he was held guilty by the Enquiry Officer of the charge of negligence for which no charge was framed against him and no opportunity was given to him.