TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD Vs. M K VASUDEVAN PILLAI
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD.
M. K. VASUDEVAN PILLAI
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This is an application for the issue of an appropriate writ quashing an order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Alleppy, the 2nd Respondent, refusing approval under S.33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act of the action taken by the management in question.
(2.) The 1st Respondent was a seasonal Worker in the Pumba River Factory, Thiruvella. In a domestic inquiry he was found guilty of fraud and dishonesty and the management passed an order dismissing him. As an industrial dispute was pending at the time, an application under S.33(2)(b) was made by the management before the 2nd respondent, for approval of the action of the management. The 2nd Respondent conducted an enquiry and passed Ext. P1 order refusing the approval. The 2nd respondent held that although the management had complied with all the conditions required by S.33(2)(b) the finding in the domestic inquiry that the charge against the 1st respondent has been proved is perverse, as it was not supported by legal evidence.
(3.) The charge against the 1st respondent was that he handed over to E. K. Sukumaran, the weighing clerk in the factory, a cutting order in the name of one M. V. Varghese, that although the same was not accompanied by sugar cane, the 1st respondent suggested to Sukumaran to manipulate the weighment fraudulently and get the weighment ticket corresponding to the cutting order without actually weighing any cane and that was with a view to cause unlawful loss to the company and unlawful gain to himself or others. Sukumaran gave evidence at the domestic inquiry that a cutting order in the name of M. V. Varghese was handed over to him on 20-12-1964 by the 1st respondent and that he was asked to punch the card for approximately two tons without any sugar cane being brought for weighment. The management relied on the evidence of Sukumaran for finding that the 1st respondent is guilty. If the evidence of Sukumaran is believed, then, there can be no doubt that there was legal evidence for the finding in the domestic inquiry that the 1st respondent was guilty of the charge.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.