Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 964 (MAD)

The Chairman v. Chellapangi & Others

2003-07-03

K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM

body2003
Judgment :- The petitioner/management of Neyveli Lignite Corporation, seeks for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai in I.D.No.54 of 1989 dated 6.12.1995. 2. According to the Management, Chinnasamy employee/respondent herein was employed in the Corporation as Technician Grade IV. On 11.10.1986 at about 6.00 p.m. the Crime branch of N.L.C. Security Force found the employee with three others stealing and carrying Track Pins worth about Rs.6,000/- from the Scrap yard of New Shift Office in Mine-I. On seeing the Security Men, the said Chinnasamy and another person ran away and only one of them was caught by the security. On interrogation, it came to the light that one of the apprehended persons was the son of the said Chinnasamy/second respondent herein. Except the said Chinnasamy, all the other three persons involved in the crime were outsiders. Preliminary investigation revealed that the employee and others were involved in series of thefts of Ground Water Control Pumps, cables and other materials etc., over a period of time. Second respondent as well as other individuals gave a voluntary statement admitting their offences and involvement in the theft of Corporation materials. A criminal complaint was also filed against him. 3. A Departmental enquiry was conducted and after preliminary enquiry regular charges were framed in terms of the Standing Order of the Corporation. In response to the charge memo issued by the management, though the delinquent offered his reply he did not deny the charges, but gave an undertaking that he will not give any room for any such complaint in future and requested revocation of the order of suspension. 4. An enquiry was conducted and after complying with all the requirements the enquiry was completed and the Enquiry Officer found that the charge levelled against Chinnasamy had been proved beyond doubt. On notice from the Disciplinary Authority and after considering the explanation of the delinquent, the Corporation dismissed the employee from service. 5. The employee raised an industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal and the Tribunal after considering the materials held that findings of the Enquiry Officer was perverse and dismissal by the Disciplinary Authority was not valid. On notice from the Disciplinary Authority and after considering the explanation of the delinquent, the Corporation dismissed the employee from service. 5. The employee raised an industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal and the Tribunal after considering the materials held that findings of the Enquiry Officer was perverse and dismissal by the Disciplinary Authority was not valid. However, in the mean time, the employee had died and therefore, legal representatives have been impleaded as being entitled to the benefits namely backwages due to the deceased employee from the date of the order of dismissal till his death 31.1.1983. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the above writ petition has been filed by the management. Learned counsel for the management contends that there is overwhelming evidence to show that the employee was one of the individuals who had committed theft of the materials belonging to the Corporation. They were caught red-handed, and found to have committed the serious offence of theft. The son of the employee himself has given a statement admitting the offence as he was one of the individuals who had committed the misconduct of theft. However, the Labour Court notwithstanding the serious nature of the offence had erroneously set aside the order of dismissal and had also awarded backwages in favour of the delinquent. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents/legal representatives of the deceased employee, contends that the Tribunal has examined the evidence in detail and found no truth in the charges. The Tribunal has also rightly come to the conclusion that no reliance can be placed on the statement of the son of the employee. His statement cannot be accepted for implicating the employee. The Tribunal has also taken note of the fact that no eye-witness has been examined. 8. I have considered the submissions of both sides. A perusal of the order of the Labour Court discloses that the Court has proceeded to consider the evidence as though it was dealing with a criminal case. A further fact which has weighed with the Labour Court, is that in the criminal case filed against the employee, the proceedings ended in acquittal giving benefit of doubt to the accused. 9. It is well settled that the finding of the Criminal Court is not binding on the management and the management on the available evidence before it, can come to a different conclusion. 9. It is well settled that the finding of the Criminal Court is not binding on the management and the management on the available evidence before it, can come to a different conclusion. In this case, M.Ws.1 and 2 who have seen the delinquent along with others indulging in actual theft and running away from the place, have been examined as witnesses. Statements have been clearly recorded from the said two persons. Apart from the said statement, Exs.M.1 and M.3 are statements of co-accused, one of them being none other than the son of the delinquent himself. A perusal of the said statement shows that he has given minute details regarding the actual occurrence and as to how they have committed the theft, one of them being his own father. He has not only admitted the theft, but had also dealt with the circumstances under which they were apprehended and caught. Apart from the statement of the delinquent's own son, another individual R.Sekar who was also one of the individuals who had committed the theft, has also given a statement. 10. Apart from the above clinching evidence, the Enquiry Officer has also taken note of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 who had actually chased the concerned individuals and caught one of them. 11. As stated earlier, approach of the Tribunal, is as though it was dealing with a criminal case seeking for proof beyond reasonable doubt as would be required before a Criminal Court. The statement of the son of the delinquent, has been rejected only on the ground that it cannot result in implicating the petitioner which is not a proper ground for rejection. The Tribunal proceeds further to say that the prosecution must prove the case beyond doubt. The Tribunal has proceeded further to surmise that the statement must have been forcibly recorded. If there was any such forcible recording of statement the concerned individuals ought to have raised objections or given a complaint to the police immediately thereafter. The confession statements were never retracted by the said individuals and it is not proper for the Tribunal to have arrived at a conclusion that the statement might have been forcibly recorded. What is required in a domestic enquiry is only an overall satisfactory evidence which would substantially establish the guilt of the delinquent. The confession statements were never retracted by the said individuals and it is not proper for the Tribunal to have arrived at a conclusion that the statement might have been forcibly recorded. What is required in a domestic enquiry is only an overall satisfactory evidence which would substantially establish the guilt of the delinquent. In this case, the deceased employee had indulged in the theft of the valuable materials belonging to the Corporation which is a public institution. They were caught red handed and the charges are also amply substantiated by the confession statement of son of the delinquent himself. 12. Therefore, the approach of the Tribunal in ignoring serious nature of the delinquency and also overwhelming material evidence amounts to perverted appreciation of evidence. The findings recorded by the Tribunal deserve to be set aside. There is no justification for adopting sympathetic attitude towards the employees who indulge in theft of valuable materials belonging to the Corporation which is a public institution. It would amount to misplaced sympathy. 13. In the result, I am inclined to set aside the award of the Tribunal and the writ petition is allowed as prayed for and the punishment of dismissal passed against the delinquent employee is upheld. No costs.