IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 11239 of 2008(K) -------------------------- ID.94/2005 of INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: ------------ M.NOUFAL MANNATHU HOUSE,MEENADATHUR P.O., TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, TIRUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER TIRUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 3. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD. G.P. SMT.T.B.REMANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 11239 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 award of the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad, in I.D.No.94/2005, wherein the petitioner was the workman involved. 2. The issue referred for adjudication was: “Whether the dismissal of Shri.M.Naufal, Peon, Tirur Urban Co- operative Bank, Limited, No.F.1818, Main Branch, Tirur is justifiable? If not what relief he is entitled to get.” 3. Since the dismissal of the workman was after conducting a domestic enquiry, the Tribunal considered the validity of the enquiry as a preliminary point. Since there was no serious contest against the conduct of the enquiry, it was held that the domestic enquiry was conducted validly and properly. Thereafter, the Tribunal considered the question as to whether the findings of the enquiry officer were supported by the evidence on record. The Tribunal elaborately considered the evidence and came to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence including the letter of the workman himself admitting the charge. w.p.c.11239/08 2 4. I have gone through Ext.P2 award and see that the Tribunal has discussed the evidence in detail and found that the evidence adduced by the management before the enquiry officer was sufficient to hold the workman guilty of the charge levelled against him. I do not find any perversity in the findings, which alone would give me jurisdiction to interfere with those findings. The charge levelled against the petitioner was that he withdrew money from the account of third parties by forging their signatures. The misconduct alleged against the petitioner is serious enough to warrant dismissal of the workman from service, especially since the petitioner is working in a bank. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the challenge against Ext.P2 award and, accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.11239/08 3