JUDGMENT
Y. Venkatachalam, J.
1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Corporation herein has filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the records in Approval Petition No. 237 of 1984, on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, and to quash its order dated August 30, 1991.
2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the second respondent a counter-affidavit has been filed rebutting all the allegations levelled against the respondents and justifying the impugned order of the first respondent, he submitted that there is no merit in the writ petition and that, therefore, he requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition for want of the merits.
3. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have perused the contents of the affidavit and the counter-affidavit together with all other relevant material documents available on record in the form of typed set of papers. I have also taken into consideration the various points raised by learned counsel appearing for the parties, during the course of their arguments.
4. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the only point that arises for consideration in this case is, as to whether there are any valid grounds to allow this writ petition or not.
The brief facts of the case of the petitioner Corporation as seen from their affidavit is as follows :
5. The second respondent was employed as a senior cashier in the petitioner organisation. After an internal audit, it was noticed that the second respondent worker had committed various irregularities including misappropriation of cash and falsification of records between November 1, 1982, and November 22, 1982. This would amount to an act of misconduct under the certified Standing Orders of the petitioner. Among the acts of misappropriation, one of the acts related to non-remittance of Rs. 300 from and out of a sum of Rs. 317.50 collected from students of the law college. The original challan No. 661557, dated November 20, 1982, was missing and in its place a fresh challan No. 751488, dated November 20, 1982 for Rs. 17.50 above was substituted by the worker. This challan number and the amount were entered in the cashbook. Other irregularities of a serious nature such as fabricating the way bill of Rs. 69.50 was also discovered by the audit staff. From among such irregularities for a charge memo including acts of misconduct No. 25(iv), (xiv), (xxxvii) and 25 (xii) (a) and (xii) was framed; under certified Standing Orders and the charge memo was issued to the worker on December 23, 1982. The worker submitted his explanation dated February 1, 1983. In his explanation he practically admitted his guilt with regard to irregularities No. 2 and according to him, he had to manipulate the records to oblige one Shanmughasundaram who was an assistant and who was maintaining the records of the petitioner corporation. According to the worker, it was done by him for covering up the said S. Shanmughasundaram’s involvement in the irregularities/misappropriation. As the said explanation of the worker was not found satisfactory, a domestic enquiry was held in respect of the charges. The worker fully participated in the said enquiry and he was given all opportunity to defend the same. The enquiry officer after a perusal of the findings adduced before him held that all the acts of the misconduct except the charge listed as item No. VII had been proved which covered the various allegations mentioned above. As I.D. No. 62 of 1982 was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, the first respondent herein, the petitioner Corporation filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for approval of the order of removal dated June 30, 1984. The Industrial Tribunal after receiving the pleadings passed the impugned order dated August 30, 1991, dismissing the petitioner’s application tor approval. I he order ot dismissal was based solely on the ground that the enquiry officer’s findings were perverse. Aggrieved by the said order of the Industrial Tribunal the first respondent herein, the writ petition has been filed.
6. Per contra, in the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is contended that he was employed as a senior cashier in the petitioner Corporation and have put in long years of blemishless service. He was posted at Basin Bridge Depot as head cashier. He was performing the duties of head cashier-cum-bank cashier. This was an onerous responsibility. He had to perform all the duties of a head cashier. From June 1982, the student wise registration had been changed into institution wise registration and as many as 263 institutions were attached to the Basin Bridge Depot. Thus his workload as head cashier was much more strenuous and taxing than that of his counter-parts at the other depots. In addition, he had also to do the work of bank cashier of remitting the collections three to four times a week into the Indian Overseas Bank, Elephant Gate Branch, obtain the pay order and remit the same by separate challan into the Cathedral Account. He also had to go in the evenings to get fresh tickets. This work kept him away from the depot for long hours. Vide memo dated November 23, 1982, he was charge-sheeted for the commission of some irregularities. He had made repeated representations to the Assistant Branch Manager (Accounts Administration) to provide him with more staff and also to maintain a double lock system by having a separate bank cashier. But these representations only caused the superior officer to be inimically disposed towards him. During this period his wife was also seriously ill, and hence he was forced to rely on the said M. K. Shanmughasundaram as assistant in the depot in order to cope with his workload. According to him, the said Shanmughasundaram was very slack in his work and often quarrelled with the other staff. As a head cashier it was my duty to ensure the smooth co-operation of all the staff. So he reported to the Assistant Branch Manager to replace him. Instead of confidentially taking action on the matter, the Assistant Manager revealed the contents of his report to the said Shanmughasundaram and he turned against the petitioner. On November 22, 1982, a checking of the accounts was conducted by the internal audit party staff behind his back at the instance of Shanmughasundaram, The normal practice when such checks are conducted, is to conduct it before the concerned staff and seek for clarifications immediately. However, no such opportunity to explain the alleged irregularities to internal audit party staff was given to him and charges were levelled against him. It is his case that the internal audit was conducted behind his back at the instance of the said Shanmughasundaram who was inimically disposed towards him and wanted to wreak vengence. The Assistant Branch Manager was also ill disposed towards him and thus both the said Shanmughasundaram and the Assistant Branch Manager conspired to get him charge sheeted and dismissed from service. According to him, the first respondent has rightly held that the evidence of the auditor alone could not sustain and prove the charges, and the finding of the enquiry officer, that the charges proved is perverse and hence, the first respondent rightly did not give approval to the order of termination dated June 30, 1984.
7. Having seen the entire material available on record and from the facts and circumstances of the case and also from the claims and counterclaims made by the rival parties herein it is very clear that there is clear admission of guilt by the worker in his explanation to the charge memo. Further it is also significant to note that according to the worker himself, the said Shanmughasundaram was an accomplice and that therefore there was no purpose on the part of the petitioner to examine him at the domestic enquiry. Therefore, the Tribunal’s observation that the non-examination of the said Shanmughasundaram was a factor in favour of the worker cannot be accepted.
8. That apart even in the explanation and also before the domestic enquiry, denial of the charges is not the case of the worker. Instead his case was that he was suffering heavy workload in the absence of a separate bank cashier and subtle deception was practised by the said Shanmughasundaram. Further, as rightly contended by the petitioner Corporation the Tribunal erred in re-appraising the evidence adduced before the domestic enquiry as if it were exercising its jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Further, as contended by the petitioner-Corporation, the Tribunal erred in misreading the evidence adduced at the domestic enquiry and erroneously came to the conclusion that the findings of the domestic enquiry officer were perverse. It is the categoric contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Corporationthat the Tribunal overlooked the fact that in the light of the clear admission of guilt by the worker in his explanation to the charge memo the question of the findings of the domestic enquiry officer being perverse did not arise. I see every force in the said contention of learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation in the facts and circumstances of this case.
9. In support of their case, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision in Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen: 1963-II-LLJ-78 wherein the Supreme Court has held thus while dealing with regard to the domestic enquiry against a worker :
“Since the enquiry has been fairly conducted and the findings recorded therein are based on evidence which is believed, there would be no justification for the Industrial Tribunal to consider the same facts for itself. Findings, properly recorded at such enquiries are binding on the parties, unless of course it is shown that the said findings are perverse, or are not based on any evidence.”
10. The above decision of the Supreme Court squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of this case, and that apart the Tribunal has failed to see that there is clear admission of guilt by the worker himself in his explanation and also in the domestic enquiry. Therefore, it is rightly contended by the petitioner that the impugned order of the Industrial Tribunal, dismissing the petitioner’s application for approval is vitiated by substantial errors of law and errors of jurisdiction.
11. Therefore, for all the foregoing reasons and in the facts and circumstances of this case and also in view of my above discussions with regard to the various aspects of this case also in view of the above Supreme Court decision in this regard I am of the clear view that the petitioner-Corporation herein has clearly made out a case in their favour and that, therefore, the impugned order of the 1st respondent Tribunal in Approval petition No. 237 of 1984 dated August 30, 1991, has to be quashed as prayed for. Thus, the writ petition succeeds and the same has to be allowed as prayed for.
12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, the impugned order dated August 30, 1991, passed by the first respondent in approval petition No. 237 of 1984 is hereby quashed. Consequently, W.M.Ps. Nos. 26887 of 1991 and 10583 and 10584 of 1992 are dismissed.