GAJANAN V VIBHUTE Vs. LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN order of dismissal has been sustained by the Labour Court in a reference to adjudication under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court has held that the misconduct stood proved. This conclusion was arrived at on the basis of evidence which was adduced before the Labour Court on behalf of the employer, the first respondent to these proceedings. The Labour Court had initially come to the conclusion that the enquiry which had been held by the employer into the charge of misconduct was not fair and proper. Consequently in view of the well settled position in law an opportunity was given to the employer to sustain the charge of misconduct by leading evidence before the Labour Court. On the basis of the evidence, the Labour Court concluded that the charge was established and that the penalty of dismissal was not disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct.

(2.) THE petitioner before the Court was employed as a store-keeper with the first respondent. On 10th July, 1984 a charge-sheet came to be issued in relation to an incident which had taken place on 17th May, 1984 when the petitioner was in the General Shift between 8. 30 a. m. and 5. 00 p. m. As a storekeeper, the duties of the petitioner included receiving deliveries of petrol and High Speed Diesel from suppliers and maintaining the stock of these supplies which were received in bulk and stored in the underground tanks of the first respondent. It was alleged that on 17th May, 1984 at 2. 15 p. m. an oil tanker containing 12000 litres of High Speed Diesel dispatched by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation arrived at the premises of the first respondent. The petitioner as a storekeeper received the tanker but directed the driver of the tanker to discharge the contents of only two of the three compartments of the said tanker, each of which contained 4000 litres of HSD. The allegation of the Management was that the driver was instructed not to discharge the contents of the third compartment in the tanker, but to drive the tanker away to Saki Naka where a person, who would identify the tanker would be waiting to discharge the contents of the third compartment. A sealed envelope was allegedly stated to have been given to the driver of the tanker. The tanker is thereafter said to have come to gate No. 5 in the premises of the first respondent at about 3. 30 p. m. for departure. At that stage, the watchman on duty checked all the three compartments and found that the middle compartment of the tanker was fully loaded and had not been discharged. Upon questioning the driver produced the invoice which showed that a quantity of 12000 litres of HSD was to be received by the first respondent from the tanker. The driver is alleged to have informed the watchman that the petitioner workman had instructed the driver to deliver 4000 litres of the product contain in the middle compartment to a third party at Saki Naka. The watchman thereafter informed the Assistant Security Inspector, who demanded a gate pass from the driver for taking away 4000 litres of diesel. It is alleged that while the driver was being interrogated by the Assistant Security Inspector, the petitioner arrived at Gate No. 5. The Assistant Security Inspector insisted that a gate pass would be required to permit 4000 litres of diesel to be taken out of the companys premises. The petitioner is then stated to have taken the position that he would speak to the Supervisor of the Assistant Security Inspector and sort out the matter. The petitioner thereupon took the tanker back to the dispatch station. Since the tanker did not come back to Gate No. 5, the Assistant Security Inspector contacted the Security Inspector. After the Security Inspector alongwith his two assistants went to the Transport Department, they found that the tanker was positioned there and the remaining diesel therefrom was being discharged. In the circumstances, the petitioner was charged with the misconduct of fraudulently attempting to "sneak out 4000 litres of High Speed Diesel through the tanker by instructing the tanker driver not to discharge the diesel from the middle compartment at the premises of the company but to divert it to Saki Naka. Accordingly, the petitioner was charged under Standing Order 28 (4) of fraud or dishonesty in connection with the business or property of the employer and under Standing Order No. 28 (12) of the Commission of any act subversive of good behaviour within the establishment or of the discipline of the establishment.

(3.) A Departmental Enquiry thereafter came to be convened and held by the first respondent into the allegations of misconduct. The enquiry was concluded and the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charge of misconduct was proved. The petitioner came to be dismissed from service by an order dated 27th December, 1986. In a reference to adjudication, being Reference IDA 467 of 1987 the Industrial Court by its Part-I Award dated 31st January, 1994 came to the conclusion that the enquiry which had been held was not fair and proper. Thereupon, the employer was permitted to lead evidence in support of the charge of misconduct. Before the Labour Court evidence was led on behalf of the employer of: