IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP No. 16566 of 1997(V)
1. M.PREMARAJAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. LABOUR COURT, KANNUR
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.V.RAJAGOPAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
Dated :07/12/2006
O R D E R
KURIAN JOSEPH, J.
----------------------------
O.P.No.16566 OF 1997
-----------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of December, 2006
J U D G M E N T
Ext.P1 award passed by the Labour Court, Kannur in
I.D.No.59/93 is under challenge at the instance of the workman.
Dismissal of the petitioner from the service of the 2nd respondent
was the subject matter of adjudication. It is seen that disciplinary
proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner and
domestic enquiry was conducted. The charges included
misappropriation, laches and negligence in discharge of duties
and rude behaviour towards the superiors. All the charges were
proved in the domestic enquiry. It is seen from the award that
the Labour Court has referred to in detail and has held that the
enquiry was conducted properly and that the charges were
proved against the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is
that misappropriation is only of small amounts. Whether it is small
amounts or large amounts, it is misappropriation. Yet another
contention is that the alleged misappropriation is only due to a
calculation mistake. I am afraid the contention cannot be
appreciated. It has been proved in the enquiry that there was
W.P.C.No.22908/2003 :2:
temporary misappropriation, in not accounting for the payments.
Despite all such charges proved against the petitioner, Labour
court in the exercise of power under Section 11A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, taking note of the fact that the petitioner was only
the shop Manager in the ration shop conducted by the 2nd
respondent and further taking note of the fact that the shop has
already been closed, modified the punishment as one of notional
reinstatement instead of dismissal, without backwages and
retrenchment with compensation. In the facts and circumstances
of the case, taking note of the proved charges, it cannot be said
that the award is in any way unreasonable or perverse. Petitioner
has been awarded retrenchment compensation also, taking note
of the fact that the shop had already been closed. The ends of
justice having thus been met in the award, the same is not unjust
either. There is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly
dismissed.
(KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE)
ps