9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (9) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment under the appellant company at the Tiruchirapalli Branch as a typewriter mechanic since 1950. The charges against him were that he was absent on November 2 1970, without leave and without sufficient cause and also secondly that he was on the said day privately doing some repair work of a typewriter in the premises belonging to the Eswari Institute of Commerce, Tiruchirapalli. The respondent was directed to show cause on November 17, 1970 and was placed under suspension. After receipt of Ms reply to the charge-sheet, a domestic enquiry was held in which witnesses were examined. The respondent examined only himself on his behalf and the appellant examined three witnesses including the Manager of the Tiruchirapalli Branch and the company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommerce, Tiruchirapalli, was not proved. The Commissioner also held that the order of dismissal was absolutely disproportionate, to the gravity of the offence proved. Mr Natesan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits in the forefront of his argument that as a special forum relief has been provided under the I.D. Act, namely, for making an application under section 33(A) of that Act, the remedy resorted to the respondent under the Shops Act must be held to be excluded. The learned counsel submits that since the respondent claimed to be a acted workman before the Tribunal, he should have made an appli- cation under section 33(A) for violation of section 33 of the I.D. Act before it. The respondent having chosen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ken through the evidence of the doctor before the Commissioner and we find that he stated during cross-examination that the Branch Manager Mr. Padmanabhan called on me at about 11 a.m. on 2-11-1970 . We find that the case of Padmanabhan was that at about 11. 10 A.M. on November 2, 1970, he saw the respondent working on one of the typewriters in the premises of the Eswari Institute of Commerce. There is, therefore, absolutely no foundation for the contention advanced by the learned counsel that the Tribunal ignored the evidence of the doctor. On the other hand his evidence ran counter to the stand taken by the management. Mr. Natesan also submitted that the Commissioner should not have interfered with the order passed in the domestic enquir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
