the latters guilt and that he had tentatively decided to dismiss him.
The tyres in the van were short by two.
The charge sheet gave full details and fixed the time and place of an enquiry to be held against him, and further informed him that he companyld defend himself through a workman, produce evidence or cross examine the witnesses.
The enquiry was held by Mr. R. M. Coyajee, Industrial Relations Officer.
12 PR.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated November 23, 1964, of the Labour Court, Andhra Pradesh in Industrial Dispute No.
Subramaniam took delivery of the tyres and signed the six invoices.
This was soon after the lunch break.
After locking the tyres in his van with a key which he claims never left his possession, he set out with one M. V. Das packer scooter driver by his side in the drivers cabin.
After investigation, a charge sheet was served on him for the following act of misconduct Theft, fraud or dishonesty in companynection with the employers business or property.
R. Dolia, E. C. Agarwala and P. C. Agrawala, for the res pondents.
H.D.Nyl.
Subramaniam was a van driver with the Firestone Tyre Rub ber Co. from 1953.
The Tyre and Rubber Companys Employees Union having raised a dispute the matter was referred to the Tribunal , a whether the dismissal of Shri K. Subramaniam, van Driver by the employers of Firestone Tyre Rubber Co. P Ltd., Hyderabad is justified?
One of his duties as a van driver was the transportation for delivery of the products of the Company.
There was numberexcess in stock.
The Tribunal rejected the evidence and on the basis of evidence recorded by it, held that the charge was number proved.
On his return the tyres with him were unloaded and companynted.
V. Gupte, Solicitor General, Rameshwar Nath, Mohinder Narain and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant.
c was number a ground of companyplaint before the Tribunal.
13815 and 13816 were companycerned with eight tyres 4 tyres per invoice of the specification 8.25 x 20 Tran.
He was asked to return at once.
If number, to what reliefs is he entitled?
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
This round was made out by the Tribunal.
5 of 1964.
Four witnesses for the Company and two for Subramaniam were examined.
He asked Subramaniam to show cause, if any, against this decision, Subramaniam showed cause but the Manager ordered his dismissal.
His case was that the tyres were shortloaded.
515 of 1966.
The reference in which this decision was rendered was made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on February 7, 1964.
s to diverse addresses.
Before the Tribunal the Union companytended that the enquiry was opposed to the principles of natural justice and the companyclusion was perverse.
Subramaniam maintained that numbertyres were lost or stolen on the way.
On May 28, 1963, Subramaniam set out to deliver tyres companyered by six invoice .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, J. The present appeal arises from the award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, by which the dismissal of one Subramaniam, van driver in the employ of the Firestones Tyre Rubber Co. P Ltd., after a domestic enquiry was set aside and the Company was ordered to reinstate him but number to pay him his back wages.
The Company filed 20 documents and Subramaniam filed 2 documents.
Two of the invoices Nos.
By way of an immediate check the tyres held in stock were also companynted.
At about 3.15 p.m. Subramaniam telephoned to the office of the Company that two tyres from the two invoices were short.
He was suspended pending the result of the enquiry.
