MADURA COATS LIMITED Vs. P C RATHOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court granting respondent No. 2 reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back-wages from 15-7-1987.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 2 workman was employed as Accounts Assistant in the petitioners Sales Office on a monthly salary. The respondent-workman was required to perform various duties including clerical work. He was expected to make vouchers for daily expenses, receive cheques, cash, drafts from customers and to deposit the same into the petitioners account with the bank. The workman was also required to prepare a statement of account, collect bank statement and send them to the companys Head Office at Ambsamudram. The petitioner alleged that on 7-3-1987, the Sales Manager Chatterji learnt that there was a heavy debit amount of Rs. 26 lacs on account of dishonouring of cheques issued by their regular customer M/s. Indu Exports of India. The Sales Manager was the superior officer of the workman questioned him and the workman assured him that such debit is not correct and that he had reconciled the transaction.

(3.) THE Sales Manager, Chatterjee, learned about the heavy debt of Rs. 26 lakhs payable by M/s. Indu Exports of India and questioned the workman. On 3-3-1987 the Sales Manager not being satisfied with the explanation of the workman, went to the bank alongwith the workman and one Dorai Subramaniam, who was senior sub-manager and who was also one of the superiors of the workman. The officers of the petitioner handed over four cheques of different values totalling to Rs. 26,12,377. 42 which had been deposited on 28-2-1987 and which were dishonoured. A cheque of the same company deposited on 11-2-1987 for a sum of Rs. 1,27,215 which was also dishonoured was given alongwith these cheques. It is the case of the petitioner that the workman knew that the cheques had been dishonoured but had adopted a practice whereby the company would be kept in the dark about the fact that the cheques issued by Indu Exports India Ltd. had been dishonoured. The petitioners case is that the modus operandi used by the respondent-workman was that he would draw up a cheque for an amount for which Indu Exports had been supplied material and would deposit the same in the petitioners account, knowing fully well that the said cheque would be dishonoured. At the end of the month after the cheque was dishonoured, the respondent-workman would issue a fresh cheque for new material which might have been purchased by Indu Exports and include the amount of the earlier dishonoured cheque. At the end of the month, the statement which the workman would reconcile would show that there was no balance amount pending from Indu Exports. The amount of the dishonoured cheque would not be shown. The further allegation of the petitioner is that when confronted with this, the workman admitted his guilt and wrote out a confession on 3-3-1987 in the presence of the two other officers from another department as well as an Advocate. Another letter was issued by the workman on 4-3-1987 returning certain blank cheques of M/s. Indu Exports India Ltd. which were allegedly in the custody of the workman. The petitioner terminated the services of the workman without holding an enquiry although the charge-sheet was issued to him on 20-3-1987.