Judgment:
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to ID 154/2006 and quash the award dated 23.12.2008 passed therein by the first respondent and further direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with back wages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.
R.SUDHAKAR, J.
ORDER
1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to I.D.No.154/2006 and quash the award dated 23.12.2008 passed therein by the first respondent and further direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with back wages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.
2. The petitioner joined the services of the second respondent as jewel appraiser on 20.6.1997 and she was regularized on 27.3.1998. On 9.3.2005, petitioner was suspended from service on account of charge of misappropriation and wrongful sanction of jewel loan. Based on appropriate enquiry she was dismissed from service on 27.1.2006, against which she filed an Industrial Dispute No.154 of 2006 and award was passed on 23.12.2008 dismissing the Industrial Dispute. Against the dismissal of the Industrial Dispute, petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.
3. On going through the award of the Labour Court, the following facts are revealed. There was no oral or documentary evidence by the petitioner or the second respondent management before the Industrial Tribunal. However, before the enquiry officer, the management filed Exs.R1 to R11. No oral evidence on both sides. Ex.R-1 is the charge memo. In that, petitioner was charged that she abetted the misappropriation to a sum of Rs.30, 79,700/- on account of jewel loan paid to borrowers and the specific allegation against the petitioner is that she issued the jewel appraisal certificate after payment of loan to the borrower.
4. Further in respect of loan number is 6548 relating to one Kosala, in which the loan was paid on 8.5.2004 it was found that the jewel was not real gold. The said Kosala, who pledged the gold neckless also, admitted that she did not pledge gold neckless or chain. This proved the allegation made in the charge memo. The explanation given by the petitioner to the charge memo is Ex.R-2. In that the petitioner stated that she issued the certificate on the basis of the direction issued by the Special Officer who is superior to her. She, however, admitted that she is the person who appraised the jewels on which the loan was issued. The Labour Court concurred with the finding of the enquiry officer that the petitioner committed irregularity and she is also equally responsible for issuing of jewel loan without verifying the genuineness of the jewel pledged and that too issuing the appraisal receipt after the payment of loan. It is held by the Labour Court that the petitioner had not disputed the irregularity committed by her. Based on the material evidence and considering the report of the enquiry officer marked as Ex.R-8 and the explanation given by the petitioner, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry was conducted in a proper way, the explanation of the petitioner was considered and the evidence of management witness was taken into consideration for holding the petitioner guilty of issuing wrong jewel appraisal certificates in respect of jewel loan. The Labour Court based on the evidence on record clearly came to the conclusion that there was no material evidence placed by the delinquent to relieve her from the liability of issuing false certificates without verifying the genuineness of the jewel which was the basis for issuing the jewel loan. Therefore, it justified the order of dismissal.
5. In support of the writ petition, except the Labour Court award, no other material is placed by the petitioner. No evidence or document was let in on behalf of the petitioner before the Labour Court. None of the documents which are relied upon during domestic enquiry has been relied upon by the petitioner in support of the writ petition to prove the plea taken that there is violation of principles of natural justice. In the absence of any material oral or documentary to support the case of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award of the Labour Court.
6. The petitioner's counsel only plea is that the petitioner acted on instruction of the superior and that plea is not support by material.
7. Finding no merits, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.