Case: Managment, Pnadiyan Roadways Corp. Ltd Vs. N. Balakrishnan

Respondent herein was employed as a helper at Kumuli Depot of Appellant. A criminal complaint was lodged against him for alleged commission of theft of Rs.37,086.05 on 03.11.1985. A disciplinary proceeding was also initiated against him. He pleaded not guilty to the said charge both before the disciplinary authority as also the criminal court. In the disciplinary proceeding, he was, however, found to be guilty of the said charge. He was dismissed from services only after a show cause notice was served onfiled an application for approval of the said order of removal purported to be in terms of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act). Approval sought for was not granted on the premise that in passing the said order of termination, Clause 17(5) of the Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation, which required the management to take into account the past record before passing the order of dismissal, was not compliedpendency of the said proceedings before the Tribunal, admittedly the Criminal Court held the respondent not guilty of commission of the charge of removal of the said amount of Rs. 37,086.05. He was, therefore,Writ Petition was filed by the appellant questioning the said Order of the Labour Court which was marked as Writ Petition No. 1485/1990. A learned Single Judge of the said Court allowed the Writ Petition. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, Respondent preferred an appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court. By reason of the impugned judgment, the said appeal has been allowed holdingUnfortunately, the learned Judge while accepting the case of Management, committed two errors. The first one is that he proceeded that the charge leveled against the workman relates to misappropriation. It is not in dispute that based on the complaint of the Management, prosecution was launched against the workmen for the offence of theft, which also ended in acquittal in C.C. No. 75 of 1986 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalyam dated 14.10.1987. Secondly, the learned Judge committed an error in holding that when an employee is involved in the case of misappropriation of funds, no lesser punishment than the dismissal from service can be imposed. However, according to the learned Judge when a major punishment is to be imposed depending upon the nature or gravity of the offence, then the factors mentioned in clause 17(5) of the Standing Orders have someis, thus, before us.

Reasoning:
took place in the yeare has beentaken back in service in the year 1989.Despite the fact that the Writ Petition filed by the appellant was allowed on 08.10.1999, by reason of an interim order of stay granted by the Division Bench, he continued in his service.is merely a class IV employee, it does not hold any office of confidencee was not charged with an offence ofbreach of trust.not a fit case where thisshould exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.