EMPLOYERS OF FIRESTONE TYRE AND RUBBER CO PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises from the award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, by which the dismissal of one Subramaniam, van driver in the employ of the Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. (P) Ltd. after a domestic enquiry was set aside and the Company was ordered to reinstate him but not to pay him his back wages. The Reference in which this decision was rendered was made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on February 7, 1964. The following are the circumstances leading up to it.

(2.) Subramaniam was a van driver with the Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. from 1953. One of his duties as a van driver was the transportation for delivery of the products of the Company. On June 18, 1963, Subramaniam set out to deliver tyres covered by six invoices to diverse addresses. Two of the invoices (Nos. 13815 and 13816) were concerned with eight tyres (4 tyres per invoice) of the specification 8.25 X 20 Tran. H.D.Nyl.12-PR. Subramaniam took delivery of the tyres and signed the six invoices. After locking the tyres in his van with a key which he claims never left his possession, he set out with one M. V. Das (packer/ scooter driver) by his side in the driver's cabin. This was soon after the lunch break. At about 3-15 P. M. Subramaniam telephoned to the office of the Company that two tyres from the two invoices were short. He was asked to return at once. On his return the tyres with him were unloaded and counted. By way of an immediate check the tyres held in stock were also counted. There was no excess in stock. The tyres in the van were short by two. Subramaniam maintained that no tyres were lost or stolen on the way. His case was that the tyres were shortloaded. After investigation, a charge-sheet was served on him for the following act of misconduct:-

(3.) Mr. Coyajee found the charge proved and submitted the minutes of the enquiry to the Superior Officers. Then the Manager Southern Division informed Subramaniam that he was convinced of the latter's guilt and that he had tentatively decided to dismiss him. He asked Subramaniam to show cause, if any, against this decision. Subramaniam showed cause but the Manager ordered his dismissal.