IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 12410 of 2007(B)
1. THE HEAD, RE DIVISION,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SHRI.SIVAKUMAR SHENOY,
... Respondent
2. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
For Petitioner :SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :27/05/2009
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 12410 of 2007
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 27th May, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The management in I.D.No. 3/2005 before the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam is the
petitioner herein. They are challenging Ext. P1 award of the Labour
Court in that I.D. The issue referred for adjudication was:
“Whether the action of the management in reduction of one
increment with cumulative effect and also recovering transport
subsidy from his salary is correct or not? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled?”
2. Before imposing punishment on the 1st respondent-workman,
the management chose to conduct a domestic enquiry on the
allegation of misconduct. But, in the enquiry, the enquiry officer
found the 1st respondent not guilty. But the disciplinary authority
chose to differ with the findings of the enquiry officer and found that
the 1st respondent is guilty of the misconduct and imposed a
punishment of reduction of one increment with cumulative effect and
directed to return the transport subsidy paid to the workman, the
alleged illegal drawal of which was the allegation of misconduct. An
industrial dispute was raised by the workman, which was referred
for adjudication by the Tribunal.
3. Before the Tribunal, instead of relying on the enquiry, the
management chose to adduce evidence in support of their
contentions. Accordingly, evidence was adduced by both sides and on
the basis of that evidence, the Tribunal came to the finding that there
was no material on record to find that the workman was guilty. On
that finding, the punishment was set aside and the management was
directed to refund the transport subsidy recovered from the workman.
That award is under challenge in this writ petition at the instance of
W.P.C. No. 12410/2007. -: 2 :-
the management.
4. The allegation of the management against the workman was
that for the period from 24-1-2000 to 1-12-2000, the workman was
residing at Kalamasserry. But he applied for and got payment of
Rs.468/- per month for the said period as transport subsidy on the
alleged false ground that during the relevant period, he was residing
at Kumbalangi. The management produced the voters’ list of
Kalamasserry area in which it is shown that the workman and his wife
are residing at Kalamasserry. The management produced another
document, which is a letter from a ration shop at Kalamasserry to the
effect that during the relevant period, he was availing of ration
articles from that shop. Thirdly, the management produced a report
from the Police Commissioner dated 10-7-2003. The workman also
produced four documents. One was a letter from the President of the
Kumbalangi Gram Panchayat, the second was a residence certificate
issued by the Village Office, Thrikkakkara north village, the third was
a certificate from the Village Officer of Kumbalangi and the 4th from
the Executive Officer of the Kumbalangy Grama Panchayat. The
Tribunal, for the reasons stated in the award, refused to rely on the
documents produced by the management. On the other hand, the
Tribunal found the three documents produced by the workman
reliable in support of his case. Based on that evidence, the Tribunal
found the workman not guilty. It is such a finding that is under
challenge in this writ petition at the instance of the management.
5. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
6. At the outset, I note that what is canvassed before me is the
findings of fact entered into by the Industrial Tribunal on the
W.P.C. No. 12410/2007. -: 3 :-
evidence adduced before it. It is settled law that that this Court in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India can interfere with such findings only if such findings are
demonstrably perverse.
7. The first document relied on by the management before the
Industrial Tribunal was the voters’ list of North Kalamasserry
Municipality for the year 2000. The Tribunal refused to rely on the
same on the ground that the details appearing in the voters’ list is
prior to 1-1-2000, whereas the period in dispute was between 24-1-
2000 to 29-11-2000. The second document is a letter issued from a
ration shop, the signatory of which had expired in 1999. Therefore,
the Tribunal refused to rely on the same also. The third one was a
report from the Police Commissioner in respect of 18 employees.
The management had requested the Police Commissioner to enquire
into the antecedents of the 18 persons. No adverse report was given
by the Police Commissioner against any of them. But, in respect of
the workman alone, there was a statement in the report that for the
period from 15-1-2000 to 1-12-2000 the workman was residing at
Kalamasserry. The Tribunal found it unreliable on the ground that
such a statement was not expected in a police verification report. The
Tribunal also found that that report was only in respect of the
workman and not in respect of any of the other 17. Further, Ext. P11
request in this regard to the Police Commissioner was issued in 13th
May, 2003, long after the period in question. On the other hand, the
President of the Kumbalangi Grama Panchayat, the Village Officer,
Thrikakkara North Village and the Village Officer, Kumbalangy
categorically certified that the workman was residing at Kumbalangi
W.P.C. No. 12410/2007. -: 4 :-
during the relevant period. Those documents were relied on by the
Tribunal. From a reading of the reasoning given by the Tribunal, I am
unable to find any perversity whatsoever in those findings, without
which I would not be justified in interfering with such findings.
Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contentions in the writ
petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/