WORKMEN Vs. EIGHTH INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner No. 2, Shri A.N. Pandit is a dismissed workman who was appointed as salesman in the company on 18th July, 1962 and was permanently posted at Keonjhar, Orissa which was his headquarter. A sudden check of the Keonjhar depot was carried out on 8th April 1983 by Shri S. Chadha, Deputy Area Sales Manager along with other officers of the company. After conducting the sudden check / inspection of the depot it was found that there was net cash shortage of Rs. 5,334 and it was further detected that there was stock shortage of 30.57Kg of tea valued at Rs. 1,083.35 and excess stock of tea valued at Rs. 141.99.

(2.) Petitioner No. 1 was asked to submit explanation in this regard. Shri Pandit submitted before the respondent company wherein it was contended that some quantity of tea have been supplied in the local market just on the previous day of the checking i.e. on 07.04.83 and the price of the said tea was to be collected on the very next day of supply i.e. on 08.04.83. According to the Petitioner No. 2 the amount in question could not be collected from the market as he was held up by reason of the sudden check and of inspection of the depot. The management of the company however, was not satisfied with this explanation of the Petitioner No. 2 and a charge sheet was issued on various counts. The company further issued another charge sheet on 3rd June 1983 wherein the net shortage of the amount was stated to be Rs. 10,978.34 instead of the earlier mentioned amount of Rs. 6218.79. The Petitioner No. 2 submitted a reply to the amended charge sheet.

(3.) The concerned authority in the management of the company was not satisfied with the aforesaid explanation of the Petitioner No. 2 in answer to the charge sheet and therefore decided to conduct a domestic enquiry in respect of the charges mentioned in the charge sheet. According to the Petitioners the said enquiry was held in an irregular manner and without following the principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer after conducting the departmental enquiry came to a finding that the charges against the workman concerned i.e. against the Petitioner No. 2 herein had been established. The Enquiry Officer held the petitioner No. 2 guilty of charges and submitted the enquiry report to that effect.