While the mortgage was still subsisting and an amount of Rs.
29150 of 1997 and 10461 of 2000.
Then they came to know that the original title deeds which were supposed to be in deposit of the companypany was in his custody.
The Labour Court also recorded the following finding No doubt the companyfidence of the employer on this petitioner has shaken by this occurrence but numberinstance of earlier mis conduct are spelt.
Being aggrieved by the said order directing the reinstatement of the respondent the appellant preferred a writ petition before the learned Single Judge, the respondent also being aggrieved by the order upholding his misconduct filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging that part of the order.
Based on said facts a departmental enquiry was instituted and on the reports submitted by the Enquiry Officer holding the appellant guilty of the misconduct charged and taking into companysideration the seriousness of the charge the services of the respondent were terminated.
As per the terms of the said title deeds of the property belonging to the respondent was to be in custody of the appellant till the entire amount of the loan with interest was discharged.
1,34,951/ was due from the respondent, the appellants officers came to know that certain public numberices were published in the local Newspaper calling upon the intending purchasers to make their offers for the purchase of the property belonging to the respondent which was mortgaged to the appellant by deposit of title deeds.
Against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge both the appellant and respondent herein preferred appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court which dismissed the writ appeals on the following grounds In our opinion, a reading of Section 11 A would show that the power of the Labour Court is without limitation.
1864 of 2001 and 1901 of 2001 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant herein companyfirming the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21 11 2001 made in W.P. Nos.
Obviously, because it was stealthily taken away from the custody of the appellant.
On the appellants companying to know of the same, its officers approached the advocate who on behalf of the respondent had issued the publication.
He borrowed house building advance by depositing title deeds of his properties as securities, creating an equitable mortgage in favour of the appellant.
Being aggrieved of the said decision of the appellant, respondent approached the Additional Labour Court challenging the said enquiry report as well as the companysequential punishment imposed on him.
SANTOSH HEGDE, J. These appeals are preferred against the companymon judgment of the High Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad made in Writ Appeal Nos.
Facts necessary for the disposal of these are as follows The respondent herein was an employee working as Assistant Grade I in the Stores Department of the appellants, R D Division at Hyderabad.
