IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 21911 of 2004(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHRI. JANABHAKTHAN N.T., NIRAPPEL HOUSE, KONNATHADY P.O., IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM. 2. KONNATHADY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.K.260, KONNATHADY P.O., IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. ADV. SRI.K.BABU THOMAS FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: PHOTOCOPY OF AWARD DT.11.2.2003 IN I.D. 80/94. P2: PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P. 18856/03 DT.7.10.2003. P3: PHOTOCOPY OF AWARD DT.27.2.2004 IN I.D. 80/94. P4: PHOTOCOPY OF REQUEST FILED BY PETITIONER DT.7.7.1993. P5: PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE MAGISTRATE COURT DT.20.4.1993. P6: PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER DT.27.7.1993. P7: PHOTOCOPY OF APPEAL FILED BY PETITIONER DT.21.8.1993. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.21911 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 28th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT The W.P.(C) is filed challenging the order of the Labour Court confirming petitioner's dismissal from service of the second respondent- Bank. I heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the second respondent-Bank. 2. The petitioner was acting as a Cashier of the second respondent- Bank during 1993. Based on a complaint that the kury subscribers are not paid full prize amount, the Bank conducted enquiry and on 14.6.1993 it was noticed that there was a cash shortage of Rs.3,286/-. It was further noticed that prize amounts were not fully paid to kury subscribers. On checking the stock of gold taken from members against advance of loans, it was noticed that 11 items weighing 136.6 grams of gold were also missing. It is conceded position that two keys of the strong room were held by Secretary of the Bank along with the petitioner so that they together could only operate the strong room. Since there is no case of breakage or burglary in the Bank, any shortage has to be necessarily accounted by the Secretary as well as the petitioner as they were the exclusive custodians of the strong room. On noticing shortage, both the Secretary and petitioner were 2 suspended from service pending enquiry. The petitioner gave a confession statement marked as M32 in the proceedings before the Labour Court whereunder he conceded having responsible for the shortage of cash and the gold. The case of the petitioner put forward before the Labour Court and before this court is that the confession statement was written at the request of the President of the Society. In fact when the dismissal based on findings in the domestic enquiry was challenged before the Labour Court in the first round, it interfered with the punishment holding that proper opportunity was not given to the petitioner. However, the second respondent challenged the award of the Labour Court before this court which led to setting aside the award and remand of the case to the Labour Court. In the second round, Labour Court took evidence and in that proceeding petitioner pleaded that M32 was written, signed and delivered by him at the request of President of the Society. I do not think the petitioner's argument is tenable because even though according to the petitioner confession statement was written and given at the request of President of the Society, there is nothing to indicate that the President forced the petitioner to write incorrect things in the statement. The petitioner is an educated person who had over 12 years of service in the Bank at the time of the incident and he has no case that anybody forced him to write against his will and against facts. Therefore, I am unable to accept this theory put forward by the petitioner. In many cases it so happens that 3 for minor irregularities if employees concede guilt, make up the loss and then tender apology, managements used to pardon such employees. Probably the petitioner was led to believe that pleading guilty may end up in lighter punishment. However, the Bank inspite of petitioner's acceptance of guilt, probably imposed higher punishment because the offence was serious in nature. It is also to be noted that the Secretary of the Bank who does not appear to be beneficiary of the fraudulent transactions, later took his life on account of the dishonour consequent to dismissal from the Bank. I do not find any justification to interfere with the findings of the Labour Court which is well supported by evidence and documents. Once the dismissal is confirmed by Labour Court after taking detailed evidence, the procedural irregularities if at all committed by the Bank disappears and there is no scope for interfering with the award of the Labour Court based on technical procedural irregularities committed by the Bank in the matter of enquiry. Therefore, I do not go into these contentions raised by the petitioner. The W.P.(C) is devoid of any merit and is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms