2007 (7) TMI 619 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the appeal.
2. Merits of the dismissal order and Tribunal's award.
3. Procedural irregularities in the domestic enquiry.
4. Entitlement to back wages.

Summary:

1. Maintainability of the Appeal:
The appeal's maintainability was challenged on the grounds of being barred by law and lack of appropriate condonation. The Court found that the appeal against the order dated March 31, 1999, was delayed by 1636 days, and the appeal against the order dated January 11, 2000, was delayed by 1 day. The Division Bench had condoned the delay, making the appeal maintainable. The Court rejected the contention that the Division Bench, being a Co-ordinate Bench, was not competent to decide the issue afresh.

2. Merits of the Dismissal Order and Tribunal's Award:
The Tribunal quashed the dismissal order on the grounds that the workman was denied particulars and addresses of policyholders, original policy bags were not produced, no witness was examined by LIC, and the Presenting Officer acted as a witness. The Court found that the workman admitted the facts in his reply and prayed for mercy. The Tribunal's focus on procedural irregularities was deemed incorrect as the workman had not demonstrated any prejudice caused by these irregularities.

3. Procedural Irregularities in the Domestic Enquiry:
The Court examined whether the irregularities pointed out by the Tribunal were valid. It was found that the addresses of policyholders were known to the workman, and the policy bags were produced for inspection initially. The non-production of original policy bags and non-disclosure of addresses did not cause any prejudice to the workman. The Presenting Officer, being an employee of LIC, was entitled to give evidence, and there was no law precluding him from doing so.

4. Entitlement to Back Wages:
The Court held that the Tribunal was wrong in granting back wages as the workman did not work during the suspension period and was paid appropriate suspension allowance. The issue of back wages became irrelevant after quashing the Tribunal's award.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. The award of the Tribunal was quashed, and the issue of back wages was deemed irrelevant. The appeal was disposed of without any order as to costs.