BHAGIRATHI VISHANDATT MAKHOLIA Vs. KEMP AND COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition takes exception to an order of dismissal from service made against an employee of the 1st respondent and confirmed as valid by the 2nd respondent.

(2.) THE 1st respondent hereinafter also referred to as the employer, is a company dealing in retailing of drugs and pharmaceuticals. The petitioner joined the 1st respondents employment on 16th July, 1970. In course of time she was promoted as a Personel Assistant and posted at the employers head office at Prabhadevi, Worli, in or about December 1971. P. T. Talwar came to head the Personal Department in July 1976. P. L. Yevalekar was appointed as a Trainee in the Employers concern. Talwar found some defects in the working of the petitioner and in due course she came to be charge sheeted. , Briefly, the charges against here were that being in control of the records of the personnel, she had been manipulating the record with regard to herself. As a result of this manipulation, the record showed her to have different types of leave aggregating to 6 days to her credit in the year 1976. This had resulted in payment of salary to her also for those days on which she was absent without entitlement or authorisation. Next, it was contended that she had been late on a number of occasions between August 1976 to January 1977. This being unpunctuality constituted a misconduct on her part. The charge-sheet having been served upon the petitioner she gave a reply and an enquiry was commenced. One Mr. S. T. Ganpule was appointed an Enquiry Officer (E. O. ). The said Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry and found the petitioner guilty of the lapses attributed to her. Pursuant thereto the employer dismissed her from service. This was on 13th May, 1977 and the petitioner sought redress from the Labour Court presided over by the 2nd respondent. The said respondent affirmed the finding of guilt recorded against the petitioner as also the propriety of the punishment imposed upon her. The order of the 2nd respondent to the above effect is at Exh. I. That order has occasioned the present petition.

(3.) IT is the petitioners contention that the charge-sheet upon her was frivolous and that the manner in which the enquiry was carried out left much to be desired. In any case, the enquiry was vitiated by the part played by P. T. Talwar who was interested in displacing the petitioner so as to accommodate trainee Yevalekar. The 2nd respondent was in error in sustaining the procedure for the conduct of the enquiry and the punishment imposed upon her. The 1st respondent denies that the enquiry was vitiated by bad faith on the part of P. T. Talwar. Petitioner was rightly found guilty of manipulating office records so as to benefit herself. This was proof of dishonest and the continued unpunctuality established against her warranted the punishment of dismissal imposed upon her. The order passed by the 2nd respondent was unassailable and the petition deserved to be dismissed.