The writ petition is filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent in I.D.No.77 of 199 and quash the award dated 30.7.2003 as null and void and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential monetary benefits with continuity of service.
2. The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the Award passed by the 1st respondent the Labour Court in I.D.No.77 of 1999 dated 30.7.2003, wherein, by which, the Labour Court declined to grant any relief to the petitioner. The fact leading to the raising of the dispute is as follows:
3. The petitioner was a Salesman in the 2nd respondent Society. He was dismissed by Order dated 16.10.1998. The dismissal preceded by a Charge Memo dated 17.11.1997 being issued to the petitioner. After his explanation, enquiry was conducted. On the basis of the finding of the enquiry and after the 2nd show cause notice and further getting his explanation, the Board of Directors passed resolution and followed by the resolution, the petitioner was given dismissal order.
4. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Trichirapalli. Since the Conciliation Officer could not bring about Mediation, the matter was taken to Labour Court. The petitioner has filed claim statement dated nil and the 2nd respondent Management filed counter statement dated nil (December 1999) before the Labour Court.
5. On the side of the 2nd respondent Management, 12 documents have been filed and they were marked by consent as Exs.M.1 to M.12. The Labour Court, on the question of validity of the enquiry, held that the enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner and according to the principles of natural justice. Thereafter, the Labour Court framed three issues for consideration. With reference to the 1st issue viz., whether the charges framed against the petitioner are proved, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that on the basis of evidence, it was clearly established that the petitioner being a Salesman, working in Public Distribution System, sold 80 kgs of rice available for Public Distribution System, to a non-card holder at the rate of Rs.5/-per kg. A complaint has been received and charges were framed against the petitioner. When the charges were sought to be proved by the witnesses, the petitioner did not cross examine those witnesses. Therefore, the Labour Court held that the charges have been proved with the available evidence and the petitioner has missed his opportunity of cross-examining tbe witnesses to prove his innocence.
6. With reference to the 2nd issue on the quantum of punishment, the Labour Court held that when it is a clear case of fraud or misappropriation or dishonest procedure adopted, the question of previous conduct of the petitioner is not relevant and under such circumstances, the question of punishment may not arise.
7. In this context, the Labour Court relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2000 LAB I.C Page 3302 (Janatha Bazar (South Kanarakaka Central Co-operative Whole Sale Stores) vs Secretary, Sahakari Noukaram Sangh etc.,). In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the quantum of misappropriation cannot be a criteria for deciding the punishment and in case of misappropriation even if the quantum is on the lower side, no sympathy can be shown. It is in that view, the Labour Court refused to interfere with the punishment aspect of the petitioner and dismissed the same by order dated 30.7.2003. It is against the Award, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
8. A perusal of the impugned order dated 30.7.2003 clearly shows that the Labour Court has taken into consideration all the relevant circumstances for arriving at just conclusion and this Court while exercising a power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere either with the finding or deciding of proportionate punishment.
9. In the light of the same, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
sr To
1. The Labour Court rep by its Presiding Officer Trichirapalli
2. The Thiruverumbur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank rep by its President at Thiruverumbur Trichy 13