IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE WRIT PETITION NO.43163/2011(L-TER) BETWEEN:
MOHAN SUVARNA S/O VASU SUVARNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS HALENYANGADI POST MANGALORE TALUK D.K. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.UDAYA PRAKASH MULIYA, ADV.) AND:
MUKKA WELFARE SOCIETY A BODY OF REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960, JYOTHI MANDIR MUKKA - 574 177, D.K.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT ... RESPONDENT (BY MS.SWARNA.L, ADV. FOR M.NAGAPRASANNA, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 6TH APRIL 2010 IN I.D.A. NO.40/1992 MADE BY THE LABOUR COURT, MANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-A, AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A. APPLICATION NO.40/92 AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY AFTER HAVING HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 04.10.2018, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This writ petition is filed against the award dated 6.4.2010 in I D A No.40/1992 passed by the Labourl Court, Mangalore by which reference of the petitioner came to be dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner was appointed as Fisheries Assistant in the respondent society and one Keshava Salian made a complaint to the respondents stating that he had given Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner in order to be credited to his account with respondent towards his loan form SBI and that was miss- appropriated by the petitioner. In pursuance of the complaint a show cause notice was issued by the respondent to the petitioner and the petitioner replied. An investigation was launched and the investigating officer implicated the petitioner and the petitioner was dismissed from service without issuing any charge memo and further enquiry.
3. Petitioner challenged the dismissal order before the Labour court in I.D.A.No. 40/92 and the Labour court on the earlier occasion by award dated 26.9.2002 was pleased to set aside the dismissal order and directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with 50% back wages. That award was subject matter in W.P.No.2574/2003 and this court set aside the award and remanded the matter for disposal afresh. After remand, the Labour Court has dismissed the reference. Hence this writ petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned award.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that MW-2 has admitted that borrowers are required to pay the installment directly to the State Bank. Therefore, once it is admitted that loans are to be paid directly to the State Bank, there is no question of complainant giving money to the petitioner to be credited to the respondent account. In the absence of charge sheet and a full fledged enquiry as required under law, the dismissal order cannot be sustained. The complainant allegedly given money on 6.5.1991. The complaint was made on 31.11.1991. Thereafter the respondent society took five years to file their statement of objections having entered appearance on 13.5.1992. The accountant and president of the society came out with different versions at different stages and crucially the complainant was not examined to explain why he had handed over money to the petitioner. There was no occasion for the Labour Court to dismiss the application, the society having failed to answer the issues raised by the Court. Hence he prays for allowing the writ petition.
6. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court.
7. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court suffers from any illegality warranting interference by this Court? My answer would be in the negative for the following reasons:
8. The Labour Court by the order dated 11.7.2002 has held that the enquiry held against the petitioner is just and proper. As regards the allegation made against the petitioner, a show cause notice was issued for which the petitioner gave reply as per Ex.M23 & M24. It is stated by the complainant Keshav Salian that once in 6 months meetings were held and the borrowers come to know their dues in the said meetings. The Labour Court based on the said explanation held that delay is properly explained by the complainant. The complainant has stated that he handed over money of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner to credit the same to his loan account. This evidence of the complainant is supported by the Accountant Patricia Andrade, who has stated that at that time, she was present and the money was given to her hands for the purpose of counting and after counting the same, she handed over the same to the petitioner. In the absence of any ill-will between those two witnesses and himself, the Labour Court believed the said witnesses and came to conclusion that money was paid to the petitioner by the complainant. From Ex.W3 & W4 it is clear that the petitioner had to carry out the work of delivery of goods and sales and also make collections from debtors, etc., So one of the works entrusted to him was to make collections from the debtors. Sri Keshav Salian had maintained loan account with the respondent society by availing loan under salvage account No.5217 maintained by the society with the State Bank of India. Whatever the loans availed by the borrowers under the salvage account No.5217, those loans had to be remitted back to the Bank only through the society and not otherwise. So in that context, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner must have collected cash of Rs.10,000/- from Keshav Salian and did not remit the same to the salvage account of the society in the name of Keshav Salian which has led to initiation of enquiry on the complaint. It is found that the petitioner without crediting the same to the loan account of Keshav Salian, had misappropriated it, which amounts to misconduct.
In the circumstances, I am of the view that the Labour Court has properly appreciated the materials and has come to correct conclusions and there is no ground made out for interference.
Writ Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
akd Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE