9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nch Manager for maximum amount of deposit adjustments coupled with my family worries and anxieties.... I might have committed some mistake resulting in the irregularities as mentioned in your letter but I would once again like to state that this was neither done by me deliberately nor did I take money from anybody for personal gains but were the outcome of circumstances beyond my control for which I crave the indulgence to your taking lenient view of the whole matter and excuse me to again prove my worth.... 2. Pertinent to note, as soon as the irregularities surfaced and the said respondent was asked to show cause those unpaid premiums were deposited. The domestic enquiry was held where he was found guilty of the charges levelled against him and he was ultimately dismissed from service with effect from September 28, 1978. He challenged the order of dismissal before this Court. This Court, by an order dated February 5, 1981 set aside the order of dismissal after holding that the proceeding was irregularly conducted. His Lordship, however, directed the enquiry officer to proceed with the enquiry afresh after giving the said respondent an opportunity to disclose evidence afresh. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the applications were dismissed. Both the parties preferred appeal. The appeal of the respondent was disposed of by judgment and order dated March 22, 2000 appearing at pages 441 to 442 of the Paper Book. The Division Bench observed that there should not be any confusion and the parties would be at liberty to apply before the Central Government Labour Court by taking all points which were taken before the Tribunal. 5. The appeal of LIC came up for hearing before us on the above mentioned dates. Apart from merits of the matter arguments were advanced on the maintainability of this appeal. We, therefore, wish to deal with the points of maintainability before we go into the merits of the matter. 6. Mr. Lakshmi Kumar Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the workman contended on the issue of maintainability as follows: (i) The instant appeal as against the original order dated March 31, 1999 was barred by law. Appropriate order of condonation was not passed by the Division Bench with regard to the same. (ii) The order allowing the application under Section 5 would depict that the Division Bench considered the subsequent order dismissing the modification application passed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tunity to consider the validity and/or propriety of the order dated March 31, 1999 which is the subject matter of the present appeal. Hence, we are of the view that there is no impediment for us to hear the appeal on merits. The second plea of Mr. Gupta is thus rejected. 9. Let us now decide the appeal on merits. 10. On perusal of the award we find that the principal reasons on which the order of dismissal was quashed, are as follows: (i) The workman was denied particulars and addresses of various policy holders whose premiums were wrongly credited by the workman. (ii) The original policy bags were not produced for inspection although asked for. (iii) Prosecution did not produce any witness to prove their case. (iv) The Presenting Officer himself deposed in favour of the prosecution which was not permissible. 11. Mr Chowdhury in support of the appeal on merits contended as follows: (i) The addresses of the concerned policy holders were all known to the workman as would appear upon perusal of the records. (ii) Assuming that those addresses were not given by LIC and assuming that the policy bags were not produced for inspection no complain was ever made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of dismissal was found to be bad payment of back wages was a consequential relief being an automatic feature. 14. In support of his contention Mr. Gupta cited the following decisions: (i) (Nagubai Ammal and Ors. v. B. Shama Rao and Ors.) (ii) (Shyamapada Chakrabertty and Ors. v. Controller of Insurance Govt, of India, Simla and Ors.) (iii) (Indian Overseas Bank v. I. O. B. Staff Canteen Workers' Union and Anr.) (iv) (Management of Madurantakam Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. S. Viswanathan,) (v) 2007, Volume- IV, SCC, Page 720. 15. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. We have also perused the decisions cited by the parties. On perusal of the order impugned we are of the view that the learned Judge was not right in granting liberty to the parties to take their plea before the Labour Court after dismissing the writ petition. The Labour Court is an Executing Court. Once the Tribunal held that the proceeding was bad and the order of dismissal was set aside by the Tribunal the Labour Court was only to execute the said award so that the employee could be reinstated with all back wages. Hence, the plea taken in the writ petition chall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they were credited as such despite non-payment. We do, not know what more is required to be proved. We do not find any prejudice caused to the delinquent by such alleged irregularities. The Tribunal was wrong in approaching the instant problem on this score. 21. Let us now come to the third objection raised by the delinquent and accepted by the Tribunal with regard to the evidence laid by the presenting officer. 22. Employer herein, being a corporate entity was to act through individuals. The Presenting Officer deposed before the Enquiry Officer. The delinquent had an opportunity to cross-examine him. We are unable to find out any law by which the Presenting Officer was precluded from giving any evidence. In the instant case the Presenting Officer was an employee of the appellant. He was representing the appellant before the Enquiry Officer. Hence, he was entitled to examine himself. We do not find anything wrong on that score. 23. In our considered view the Tribunal was wrong in interfering with the order of dismissal. Similarly the learned Single Judge erred in not interfering on that score. 24. The Apex Court decisions in the case of Indian Overseas Bank (supra) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
