Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) HEARD Km. Mahima Maurya, counsel far the petitioner, Sri Sachindra Mohan, Advocate and learned standing Counsel for the respondents Perused the record.
(2.) THE workman, K.N. Thanppakam, was in the employment at the Regional Sales Office of Telco at Allahabad. Insured motor vehicles from Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd., Centre No. 26, Floorworld Trade Centre, Coffee Parade, Bombay, (2) Senior Sales Officer, Telco, 8/18, Stanely Road, Allahabad were received by the Regional Sales Office for Sale at Allahabad. These vehicles were received by the workman and it was his duty to get them inspected and issue O.K. Certificate to the Driver/Contractors for payment of transportation. If any technical or other fault was detected by the workman or the cars required some job work, the same was to be got done by him before issuing the O.K. Certificate to the Transporters/Drivers. The workman was charged for the following misconducts vide charge sheet dated 7 September, 1991. The relevant extract of the charge sheet is quoted as under: CHARGE SHEET CUM SHOW CAUSE NOTICE Mr. K.N. Thankappam, T.N. 00461 1. You have been working as a Typist -Cum -Clerk at out Regional Sales Office (RSO) at Allahabad since 1970. 2. You are responsible for preparing, signing and appropriately forwarding the stock Despatch Memo/Vehicle Delivery Note (SDM) in respect of the vehicles received/despatched at RSO Allahabad. As a part of this responsibility you are required to indicate in the said SDMs the correct date of receipt of the vehicle at RSO Allahabad as well as any damages/accidents on the vehicles which are reported by the Driver -Cum -Mechanic in his vehicle Inspection Sheet. 3. It is alleged that you have been deliberately indicating false dates of receipt of the Vehicles at RSO Allahabad and or falsely certifying the vehicle as received with no damages or accidents in the SDMs prepared by you. Details of 12 such cases are given in the Annexure to this Charge -Sheet -cum -show cause notice. Such acts on your part have resulted in full payment by the Company to the transporters without any deduction for delayed delivery of vehicles or penalty for damages accidents. It is alleged that in return for the false statements made by you to facilitate full payment to transporters without the mandatory deductions , you have been receiving illegal gratifications from the said transporters. 4. The events described in para 3 above indicate that you have committed the misconducts of dishonesty with the employers' property or business, taking bribes or any illegal gratification and gross or habitual negligence. 5. You are hereby charged with having committed the misconduct of: (i) "theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with employers' business or property." (ii) "Taking bribes or any illegal gratification", & (iii) gross or habitual negligence.' Under Clauses 22(d), (e) and (m) of the Model Standing orders contained in Schedule 18 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1966 which is applicable to you. (6) You are required to give your explanation in writing in respect of the above charges within three days of the receipt of this charge sheet -Cum -show cause notice. If you fail to give your explanation, we shall presume you have none and take appropriate action. A.K. Kaul,Regional Manager After domestic enquiry held into the charges, the workman was dismissed from service. It appears that in the domestic enquiry, the workman concerned was given opportunity to give his statement before the Enquiry Officer and that he also did not cross -examine the employer witness M.V.S. Prasad. He also had confessed in writing about his misconduct which was also exhibited as Exhibit No. before the labour Court. Enquiry report was submitted that in view of documentary proof in the enquiry it was established that it was just not a procedural lapse on the part of the workman but there was a malafide intention in committing the misconduct by him for monitory consideration for which he had been charged.
(3.) THE labour Court framed a preliminary issue as to "whether, the domestic enquiry held by the employer is fair and proper and not violative of principles of natural justice? If so, its effect." The tribunal by order dated 2.6.1998 recorded finding that the domestic enquiry conducted in the case was in accordance with rules and principles of natural justice. However on an application moved by the workman representative even on the objection of the employer that the Tribunal had no power to review, the labour Court in the interest of justice afforded another opportunity to the petitioner workman to show that the preliminary issue was not correctly decided.;