PATIL R S Vs. INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER while working as a cashier, in the 1st respondent-Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, Bangalore Branch, was found to have committed acts of misconduct in an inspection and audit of the stocks, whence there was shortage of books worth Rs. 35,810/- and Rs. 260/- which fact was admitted by the petitioner and accordingly remitted Rs. 3,000/- and authorised the 1st respondent to deduct 1/3rd of his monthly salary and adjust the same towards balance of the amount, from the month of November, 2004 onwards. The 1st respondent constituted a committee which issued notice to the petitioner, elicited a response and thereafter by order dated 10/2/ 2005, terminated the services of the petitioner.

(2.) PETITIONER aggrieved by the order, filed a claim petition under Sec. 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short 'Act', registered as I.D. No.37/05 before the Principal Labour Court, Bangalore, which was resisted by filing statement of objections of the respondents. While the 1st respondent admitted the relationship of employer & employee and pointed out to the admission of guilt by the petitioner over the deficiencies in the stock and value thereon, the 2nd respondent denied the relationship and refuted the claim. Labour Court permitted the 1st respondent to adduce evidence to prove the misconduct whence 3 witnesses were examined i.e., B. Shivamohan- Chairman, D.R.Venkatesh & S.V. Prakash- Chartered Accountants, as MWs.1, 2 and 3 respectively and marked 15 documents as Exs.Ml to M15, while the petitioner was examined as WW1 and marked 7 documents as Exs.W1 to W7. The Labour Court having regard to the material on record, more appropriately the admission of the petitioner in cross- examination on 30/9/2008, over the shortage of books worth Rs. 35,810/- and Rs. 260/- and the remittance of Rs. 3,000/- as also the petitioner's authorisation to the management to deduct 1/3rd of his monthly salary to be adjusted balance of the amount, from the month of November, 2004 in terms of Ex.M6, declined to accept the explanation of the petitioner that the acceptance of guilt and deposit of the amount as continued in Ex.M6, was on the assurance of MW1, held the charge proved and confirmed the order of dismissal by the award dated 6/3/2009. Hence this writ petition by the workman.