IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 19635 of 2003(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.SETHUMADHAVI, MINI NIVAS, THEKKUMURI P.O., VIA.KARALMANNA. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE. 2. PATTAMBI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.F.585 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTAMBI P.O. ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR FOR R2 SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY FOR R2 SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ORDER DATED 22.11.2001 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN I.D. NO. 11/96 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 16.7.2002 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN I.D. NO. 11/96 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 19635 OF 2003 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging Ext.P2 award by which the Labour Court confirmed the dismissal of the petitioner by the second respondent-Bank. I have heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the second respondent. While the case of the petitioner is that misappropriation has been done only by the Director and petitioner was only an accountant who, in the enquiry, is not found to have misappropriated any fund, counsel for the second respondent- Bank submitted that all the employees in the Branch in which petitioner was working were involved in aiding and supporting the Director in misappropriation of Bank fund. All employees including the petitioner were proceeded against and most of them were dismissed. He submitted that Writ Petitions filed by others were unsuccessful and at least one employee went in appeal before the Division Bench, but without success. 2. On going through the Labour Court award and after hearing 2 counsel on both sides, I do not find any justification for interference with dismissal order of the petitioner confirmed by the Labour Court because petitioner was holding the key position of an accountant in the Branch at the time of commission of irregularity. Without accountant knowing, misappropriation cannot be done even by the Director. Therefore if there is any misappropriation of fund by anyone in the Branch, obviously petitioner has a role in it, irrespective of whether petitioner is a beneficiary or not. Even though counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is no finding in the enquiry, petitioner has not chosen to produce the enquiry report. I am unable to consider the argument on enquiry report which is not produced in court. In any case, Labour Court has considered the enquiry report and it found that there is no illegality or impropriety in the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer and in the findings entered by him. Consequently, WPC is dismissed as devoid of any merit. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3