MANAGEMENT OF COIMBATORE DISTRICT CONSUMERS CO OP WHOLESALE STORES LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Management of Coimbatore District Consumers Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd., is the petitioner in this Writ Petition, seeking to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore, the first respondent herein and quash his award dated 16.11.89 passed in I.D.No. 284/85.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition could be summarised as follows: The petitioner is a co-operative society owning the Chinthamani Co-operative Super Market. One G.V. Rangarajan, the second respondent herein was working as a Superintendent in the super market. He was also incharge of the purchase of the empty covers required for packing of commodities. The total requirement of such empty covers are determined by the section manned by the second respondent under whom two other Assistants by name R. Jagannathan and V.M. Natarajan were working. In the matter of placing order by the section which was under the control of the second respondent with different parties for the purchase of 17 lakhs of covers for the year 1980-81, fictitious entries were made by the said two Assistants, thereby committed misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 1,06,104- 33 of the Society's funds with the connivance of the second respondent. By following the required procedures, the charges were levelled against the delinquents. Ultimately, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 24.11.83 stating that the said Jagannathan and C.M. Natarajan joined together and misappropriated the said sum by fraudulent means and that G.V. Rangarajan had been used by the said two persons for this fraudulent act and that he was not vigilent by making proper supervision and did not bestow his care expected from him for preventing such a huge loss to the Society by the misappropriation committed by the other two Assistants. On 18.12.84, based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner dismissed the second respondent as well as the other two Assistants from service. On raising an industrial dispute by the second respondent, the first respondent took up the case on file in I.D. No. 284/85. Though it was claimed by the second respondent that the enquiry was not conducted properly and the charges were not proved, the first respondent rejected those submissions. However, by holding that the enquiry was fair and proper and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not perverse, the first respondent set aside the order of dismissal holding that it is unjustified, as it is only established that the second respondent was only negligent in discharging his duties by not properly supervising the work of his Assistants and modified the same by directing reinstatement of the second respondent with continuity of service and with 25 per cent backwages drawn by the second respondent at the time of his termination. Aggrieved over this award directing for the reinstatement by setting aside the punishment of dismissal by the first respondent, the Management of Coimbatore District Consumers Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd has filed this writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Ibrahim Kalifulla, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would vehemently contend that the first respondent, having held that the findings arrived at against the second respondent could not be said to be perverse, ought not to have interfered with the punishment by invoking his powers under Section 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act.