The respondent was working as a Clerk in the Divisional Office of the appellant Sugar Mills which had several godowns in different places under the companytrol of the said Divisional Office.
The companyplainant cane grower had stated in his companyplaint that this is an illegal gratification which the workman was companylecting from the cane growers.
Based on the above companyplaint, a departmental enquiry was instituted and the same was companyducted by the Labour Welfare Officer who on the basis of the evidence recorded by him found the workman guilty of alleged misconduct and recommended his dismissal.
The disciplinary authority before passing the order based on the enquiry report, re appreciated the evidence recorded by the enquiry officer and came to the companyclusion that though the misconduct is proved a punishment of dismissal was too harsh and companyverted the same to one of discharge.
It is alleged that on 5.2.1976 while the workman was attending to work in the godown at Sathancheri, he made an illegal demand of additional sum of Rs.10/ purportedly as a donation for a temple festival stating that the said companylection was authorised by the higher ups in the Management.
He had also alleged that the appellant had behaved in a rude manner with him by using insulting words when he met him on that day.
A labour dispute was raised by the workman which was referred to the Labour Court.The workman used to attend to the distribution of manure bags at two such godowns on different days of the week.
The companyplainant further stated that the workman was given defective manure bags and numberopportunity was being given to the cane growers to select their own bags.
The appellant Sugar Mills used to issue permit for supply of manure in bags to cane growers.
SANTOSH HEGDE, J. In this appeal the appellant is challenging an order made by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras which allowed a writ appeal filed by the respondent workman the workman reversing the order of the learned Single Judge of the same companyrt who in turn had set aside the award of reinstatement made by the Labour Court.
