IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 1302 of 2004(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE KERALA STATE CASHEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., CASHEW HOUSE, P.B.NO.13, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR BY ADV. SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN SRI.P.V.LOHITHAKSHAN SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA SMT.UMA GOPINATH SRI.SANDEEP.E. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM. 2. THE GENERAL SECRETARY, THE CASHEW CORPORATION STAFF ASSOCIATION, UTUC, H.O. KOLLAM ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMMED FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF CHARGE SHEET DT.2.3.90 ISSUED TO SRI.SUBAIRKUTTY. P1(a): ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE SAID CHARGE SHEET IS PRODUCED. P2: TRUE COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT DT.15.10.90. P3: TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R1 IN I.D. NO.52/95. P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE AWARD DT.9.6.02 PASSED BY R1. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.1302 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The W.P.(C) is filed challenging Ext.P4 award whereunder the Labour Court has set aside the punishment of dismissal imposed on the delinquent worker and ordered his reinstatement with 60% backwages. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the second respondent and gone through the enquiry report and the award passed by the Presiding Officer. The allegation of the management is that the petitioner as driver of the truck engaged in transport of empty tins for the company lifted three consignments of 1000 tins each, one from Swamy Tin Works, Kollam, another from Package India Ltd., Kollam and the third from Swamy Industries, Kollam. Even though petitioner lifted totally 3000 tins from three factories on 24.8.1989, only 2000 tins were received in the factories of the management and the delinquent employee has not delivered 1000 tins. On going through the records I find that the delinquent employee has signed Invoice No.215 dated 24.8.1989 issued by Swami Tin Works, Kollam, 2 for 1000 empty tins. The case of the delinquent employee is that even though he has signed the bill dated 24.8.1989, the goods were in fact delivered to him on 26.8.1989 and the same were delivered by him at Nooranadu Factory on the same date based on instruction received from the Kayamkulam Factory. However, the contention of management is that the goods delivered by the petitioner on 27.8.2009 is not the load covered by invoice No.215 dated 24.8.1989 issued by Swami Tin Works. On going through the findings of the enquiry and in the award, I notice that the delinquent employee has not even cared to carry the invoice with him to the factory concerned for delivery. He has also delivered goods without obtaining any receipt or goods received note normally issued. In fact, other factory employees simultaneously remained charge-sheeted for receipt of goods without issuing goods received note. The delinquent employee did not care to adduce any evidence to prove with documentary evidence that the entries in M1 are incorrect because according to him, he took delivery of the goods under same invoice on 26.8.1989 and not on 24.8.1989. The management has taken clear stand that the goods were taken 3 delivery by the delinquent employee after acknowledging receipt of goods based on which payment is made. The Labour Court without any material accepted the explanation of the delinquent employee that goods were taken delivery on 26.8.1989 and the same were delivered to the Nooranad Factory. The contention of the delinquent employee that he delivered the goods to the factory without obtaining any goods received note or other record about delivery of goods is unacceptable. In the absence of any proof furnished by the delinquent employee, I am of the view that the Labour Court had no justification to interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer that the delinquent employee took delivery of goods in terms of M1 and he failed to deliver the empty tins to the factory. Consequently I allow the W.P. by vacating the award and restoring the punishment. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms