- (1.) In this writ petition, the award passed by the Labour Court reinstating the second respondent S. Gunasekaran is being challenged. At the relevant time, i.e., in the year 1983, Gunasekaran was working as a clerk. He was suspended by an order, dated November 9, 1983 and on December 3, 1983, a chargememo was said to be served on him. However, according to the management, he refused to take the chargememo as well as the suspension order. Ultimately, he came to be dismissed. The said Gunasekaran, therefore, raised a dispute under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and the management offered to substantiate the dismissal by proving all the charges which were framed before the Labour Court itself.
(2.) The case of the second respondent before the Labour Court was that in fact there was no chargememo given and no domestic enquiry ever had been held against him. As against this, the management pleaded before the Labour Court that the workman had declined to receive the order of suspension, dated November 9, 1983, and that he had also failed to receive the chargememo. Since the workman did not hand over the charge, the chargememo was published in the newspaper and it was only thereafter the workman handed over the charge on December 5, 1983 and remitted the sale amount of Rs. 2,594.76. The management pleaded that the Board passed a resolution and directed the sub-committee to initiate action against the workman and it was on the basis of the suggestion of the sub-committee, the workman was removed from service with effect from February 28, 1984. As has been mentioned earlier, since the management offered to prove the misconduct on the seven charges framed against the workman, the matter was thereafter examined by the Labour Court and the Labour Court came to the conclusion that none of the charges could be said to have been proved. The seven charges were: "(1) He has given fake certificates as if summons were served to a member who is not alive. (2) He has committed a serious offence as if summons has been served to a member of the society who had already died, either by forgery of his signature or by arranging to get his signature forged. (3) He has forged the signatures of the members who had not been present in the general body meeting. (4) He has sold maida for Rs. 154-50 but had prepared the chit for Rs. 100-50 and after having entrusted the same to the society temporarily misappropriated Rs. 54-00. (5) He, without applying for any leave or obtaining permission did not attend to his duties from October 1, 1983 to October 7, 1983 and thus has shirked work. (6) He has refused to receive the memo, dated October 8, 1983, issued by the President and was disobedient. (7) He has refused to receive the order of the President and was disobedient." It seems that in support of the charges, the oral as well as the documentary evidence was let in and the management examined three witnesses, namely, Shanmugasundaram, Balasubrama- nian and Chinnasamy. On behalf of the workman, he examined himself. There are as many as 34 documents filed and proved by the workman, while 32 documents have been filed and proved by the respondent- management. After the appreciation of the evidence, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that none of the charges could be said to have been proved and therefore, ordered the reinstatement of the workman, with back wages, continuity of service and all the other attendant benefits. It is this award which is in challenge before me in the present writ petition.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner very painstakingly took me through the whole award and tried to point out that though there were ample evidence available on record atleast in support of the first three charges, for the remaining four charges, the Labour Court had actually ignored the evidence and thus the findings of the Labour Court on fact were perverse and could not be supported. I have gone through all these findings which are undoubtedly the findings of fact. In so far as the first and second charges are concerned, the Labour Court has found that there was no material on record to suggest that the petitioner had given a fake certificate of services of summons on one Periyasami who was already dead. The Labour Court has observed that the management had to prove that the petitioner was appointed for serving summons and that it has also to prove that it was only the petitioner who had actually served the summons and it should also prove that the petitioner had issued the summons and that he alone had given a false certificate that the summon was served. The Labour Court has observed that there was nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner was asked to serve the summons and that it was the petitioner who himself had served the summons or had put his signature on the service report. I do not see any error having been committed by the Labour Court in appreciating the evidence.;