High Court Kerala High Court

O.L.John vs The General Manager on 13 March, 2007

Kerala High Court
O.L.John vs The General Manager on 13 March, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 5826 of 2001(R)



1. O.L.JOHN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. THE GENERAL MANAGER,EXCEL GLASSES LTD.
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.GIRI

                For Respondent  :SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN (SR.)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :13/03/2007

 O R D E R
                    C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

                    -----------------------------------

                        O.P. No. 5826 of 2001 R

                 ----------------------------------------

              Dated, this the 13th day of March, 2007


                              J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 award of the Labour

Court, Kollam confirming the dismissal of petitioner for gross

misconduct, by the 1st respondent. Heard counsel for the petitioner

and Standing Counsel appearing for first respondent. Petitioner

was admittedly working as a General Assistant in the Stores

Department. The allegation against the petitioner is that on

16/06/1994 when a load of cullets were weighed, petitioner did

manipulation to inflate the quantity causing loss to the

management. The matter was immediately reported by the

Security Guard to the Personnel Department before whom

petitioner is said to have made statement admitting the

misconduct. Even though petitioner later contended that petitioner

signed only blank papers, Enquiry Officer rejected petitioner’s claim

and based on evidence, he found petitioner guilty. Since the

misconduct is of serious nature, petitioner was awarded maximum

punishment of dismissal. The Labour Court upheld the findings of

guilt and punishment against which this O.P. is filed. Counsel for

the petitioner contended that petitioner was acquitted in the

O.P.No. 5826/2001

-Page numbers-

criminal case and the disciplinary proceedings also are based on

same materials.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent on the

other hand contended that the outcome of criminal case does not

affect disciplinary action. According to him the Labour Court rightly

found that the enquiry conducted is proper and confirmed the

dismissal order given to the petitioner. Further contention raised by

the learned counsel for the 1st respondent is that the inflation of

purchased quantity on account of manipulation by the petitioner led

to financial loss to the company though actual loss has not

happened because of timely detection by the Security Guard. I

find, enquiry was made by a reputed counsel who is a retired

Labour Court Judge. Even though his findings are based on

evidence, it is seen that the very same witness, the security guard

when examined as PW2 in the criminal case, turned hostile. There

is also controversy as to the exact mode of operation done by the

petitioner in manipulating the result of the weighing machine

because while the report given by the security officer to the

Management talks about three iron pieces used by the petitioner to

manipulate the result, the charge sheet speaks about only one iron

piece. More over, another Assistant who was also charge sheeted

along with the petitioner in the criminal case was allowed to retire

O.P.No. 5826/2001

-Page numbers-

and draw his retirement benefits. It is seen that petitioner was in

service of the 1st respondent company for 20 years prior to his

involvement in the misconduct. Even though counsel for the

management stated that petitioner caused heavy loss to the

company, no previous instance of fraud is alleged or proved. He

appears to have no black mark in his professional career for 20

years prior to his involvement in the misconduct. In the

circumstances, I feel the punishment of dismissal is

disproportionate to the gravity of the offence; more so, when the

attempt of the petitioner did not end in any actual loss to the

company on account of detection. In the circumstance, I uphold

the order of the Labour Court in regard to the findings on

misconduct, but reduce the punishment to discharge instead of

dismissal. First respondent is accordingly directed to release

terminal benefits to the petitioner treating it as a case of discharge

from service from the date of suspension onwards.

This original petition is disposed of as above.

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.)

jg