MADURA COATS LIMITED Vs. P C RATHOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 21/23rd January, 2002 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the present appellant and confirmed the order passed by the Third Labour Court, Mumbai in Reference (IDA) No.712 of 1988.

(2.) The respondent No.1 - Workman was appointed as Accounts Assistant since 1980 on payment of Rs.1,700/- per month. He was subjected to charge-sheet dated 20/3/1987 for deliberately defrauding the appellant- Company to the tune of Rs.26,12,377.42 in collusion with M/s Indu Exports of India. The services of the said respondent were terminated on the ground of loss of confidence without holding domestic enquiry vide the order dated 15/5/1987. The aforesaid termination order was subject matter of the industrial dispute. The Respondent- workman raised the industrial dispute regarding the termination order. The dispute was referred to the Third Labour Court, Mumbai for adjudication which was numbered as Reference (IDA) No.712 of 1988. It is the case of the respondent No.1- Workman that he was subjected to charge-sheet on false and baseless allegations and he was made a scape-goat. It is the case of the respondent No.1 workman that M/s Indu Exports was involved in cheating with N.T.C.. The said party used to keep blank cheques signed with Shri Dorai Subramaniam, Senior Sub-Manager. It is also his case that the practice of the Company was that no lorry receipt was issued to any customer unless a demand draft of a cheque, after confirmation of the clearance of the same or cash was received. The lorry receipt was kept in the safe custody of M/s S.E. Dorai Subramaniam. He used to issue lorry receipts to parties after endorsing it. It is also the case of the workman that it was the duty of the Sales Manager to issue lorry receipts only after ascertaining the clearance of cheques from the Banks. The Company used to accept blank or post-dated cheques and used to issue lorry receipts to M/s Indu Exports of India. It is also his case that the Regional Sales Manager or Senior Sub-Manager used to give him the instructions to fill-up the blank cheques and deposit the same on a particular date. It is also his case that he used to fill up blank cheques of M/s Indu Exports of India and arrange to deposit as per the instructions. It is his further case that the Company was not making debit notes regarding dishonoured cheques which was mandatory as per the Auditor s instructions and it was the duty of the Senior Sub-Manager to see that the debit notes were prepared in cases of dishonour of cheques and every dishonoured cheque was required to be entered in the cheques dishonoured register. It is also his case that the Company was not maintaining any such register, even though the Auditor s had made a remark in that behalf. During October 1985 to June 1987, there was no internal auditing in the Office even though other offices were audited 2 or 3 times during the said period. It is also the case of the respondent that he was forced to write and sign the so-called confession letter under force and duress. The respondent pleaded that the action of the company terminating his services was malafide and bad in law and he prayed for reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service.

(3.) The claim of the respondent was opposed by the appellant Company (1st party) by filing it s written statement. On behalf of the appellant (1st party) it was contended that it was the duty of the respondent to receive cash, cheques, drafts, pay orders from the customers and arrange to deposit them in the Company s account with the Bank. It is also contended that the respondent was required to prepare daily finance report of 5 deposits and send it to the Accounts Department at Ambasamudram Office. It is the case of the Company that he had adopted the modus operandi whereby the dishonour of the cheques of M/s Indu Exports of India was never informed to the Sales Manager/ Senior Sub-Manager, and instead he used to submit fresh cheque of matching amount every month to square up the debit balance accounts due to dishonouring of cheques. The respondent used to manage to credit the cheques of M/s Indu Exports at the end of month so as to match the debit balance. It is also the case of the Company that on 30/12/1996 when the respondent was on leave, he deposited 14 cheques of M/s Indu Exports to match the dishonoured cheques so that he could reconcile the deposit with the Bank s financial statement. It is the case of the company that the respondent used to personally collect from the Bank the dishonoured cheques and he deliberately concealed this fact from the Sales Manager. The dishonoured cheques were not recorded by the respondent in daily finance statement. It is the case of the company that this act on the part of the respondent deliberately and knowingly done in collusion with M/s Indu Exports of India to defraud the Company to the tune of Rs.26,12,377.42. It is the case of the Company that in view of the documents and written submissions of the respondent, his services were terminated for loss of confidence without holding domestic enquiry.