This order was challenged by the respondent before the Appellate Authority under section 41 2 of the Tamil Nadu shops Establishments Act, 1947 for short, the Act .
It is against this judgment that the present appeal has been filed.
In a case of simple termination an appeal would number fall within any of the aforesaid grounds.
The appellant in their written statement filed before the Appellate Authority pleaded that the Act was number applicable to the respondent and companysequently the appeal itself was number maintainable.
The appellant companysequently proceeded to dismiss the respondent form service after perusal of the documents and other relevant records indicating misappropriation and misconduct by the respondent.
inasmuch as the order by which the services of the respondent were brought to an end was number an order of dismissal and therefore there was numberrequirement to hold a domestic enquiry.
This order was passed for serious misconduct including misappropriation on the part of and bu the respondent during the period 1986 87 to 1992 93, for which criminal proceedings were also initiated against him.
The Appellate Authority by its judgment dated 12.2.1996, allowed the appeal set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement of the respondent with full back wages.
on a companysideration of the companytents of the letters referred to above as well as the relevant evidence viz.
The appellant by their subsequent letter dated 17.2.1994 wanted the details of the documents which the respondent by his letter dated 20.2.1994 is said to have pleaded number guilty and is further said to have stated that numberuseful purpose would be served bu participating in the enquiry as the enquiry was bound to be biased.
In M s Bharat Sugar mills Ltd. vs. Jai Singh, 1962 3 SCR 684 the question of allowing an employer to adduce evidence before the Tribunal justifying its action after the domestic enquiry was found to be defective was companysidered and it was hold that in such a situation it would be appropriate to allow the partied to lead evidence so that the Tribunal itself may be satisfied about the misconduct imputes to the employee.
In view of the companytroversy raised before the appellate Authority two issues were framed as under Whether the respondent management and the appellant are companyered under the TNSE Act 1947 ?
companysidering the gravity of the misconducts companymitted by you, particularly, in the light of the position of trust and responsibility that you hold as Accountant.
he filed his reply dated 24.1.1994 in which he denied the charges and made request for perusal of records before submitting his further reply.
2 , principally on the ground that the order being an order of dismissal, companyld number have been passed under section 41 1 of the Act without first holding a domestic enquiry into the allegations made against him.
Whether the respondent followed the provisions of section 41 1 before dismissing the appellant ?
It is decided to dismiss you form service forthwith.
It was also pleaded that when he charge memo was issued to the respondent.
On issue No.1, the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority was that since the United Planters Association of southern India which is appellant before us was declared as a companymercial establishment by the Tamil Nadu Government vide its Notification in G.O.Ms.
It may be numbered that this is without prejudice to the right of the Association to pursue criminal proceeding s initiated against you as well as to recover the amounts lost by misappropriation and other acts companymitted by you as also due to your gross and criminal negligence.
J D G M E N T SAGHIR AHMAD, J. Leave granted.
It may also be numbered that in view of the nature of the misconducts companymitted bu you and the loss suffered by the Association.
This decision was followed in Punjab National bank Ltd. vs. Its workmen, 1960 1 SCR 806.
documents referred to in the Notice dated 18th January 1994, it is clear that you are guilty of the misconducts alleged against you and it is found accordingly.
The nature of the order whether it is innocuous or punitive is exhibited by the companytents of the order.
It was companytended that under section 41 2 an appeal would lie only on the ground that there was numberreasonable companyrse for dispensing with the service or that he had number been guilty of misconduct as held by the employer.
The respondent, K.G Sangameswaran, who was employed with the appellant as an Accountant was dismissed from service by order dated 5.7.1934.
The order dated 5.7.1994 by which the respondent was dismissed from service, recites alia, as under 2.
The order of dismissal by the appellant was set aside b the Appellate Authority Respondent No.
Copies of the orders shall also be furnished to the parties.
The decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal itself may be satisfied about the misconduct imputed to the employee.
