OP/24078/2001 of B.SAROJINI Vs APPELLATE AUTHORITY on 9 March 2001

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the opposite party- employer in Shop AppealNo.3/ 1999 before the Appellate Authority under the Shops andCommercial Establishments Act 1960 and Deputy Labour CommissionerThiruvananthapuram The 2[nd] respondent was an employee working in thepetitioner's shop. Alleging denial of employment, the 2[nd] respondentfiled the Shop Appeal. In the Shop Appeal. the petitioner took acontention that the 2[nd] respondent committed misappropriation of anamount of Rs.10,000/- and when the same was found out, because ofshame and inability to face others, the 2[nd] respodnent voluntarilyabandoned employment. After sixteen days of alleged denial ofemployment the 2[nd] respondent approached the Appellate Authority byfiling the said Shop Appeal. In that Shop Appeal the 1[st] respondent passedExt.P4(a) order in which he found that the 2[nd] respondent was deniedemployment without any reasonable cause and held that the 2[nd]respondent is entitled to reinstatement in the establishment of the petitionerwith all attendant benefits as if she continued in service withoutinterruption. However invoking Section 18 (4) of the Kerala Shops and

Commercial Establishments Act 1960 the 1[st] respondent fixed Rs. 14,000/-as the compensation in view of reinstatement to be paid by the petitioner tothe 2[nd] respondent in case the petitioner does not reinstate the 2[nd]respondent. Ext.P4(a) order and Ext.P4(b) intimation of order by the 1[st]respondent are under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner had aconsistent case that there was admission of guilt on the part of the 2[nd]respondent because of which she had voluntarily absented herself fromwork and therefore the impugned orders of the 1[st] respondent are patentlyillegal and unsustainable.

3. I have heard both sides. Before going into the rivalcontentions I must remind myself of the limitation of my jurisdiction underArticle 226 in dealing with the challenge against the orders passed by theAppellate Authority under the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act.As in the case of awards in industrial disputes, this court can interferewith such orders only if the conclusion arrived at by the authority isdemonstrably perverse or there is violation of principles of natural justice orother such illegalities. The petitioner does not allege any proceduralirregularities in passing Ext.P4(a) order. Here the only contention is

regarding the findings of fact entered by the 1[st] respondent. As I havealready stated such findings of fact can be interfered with by this Courtunder Article 226 only if the same is demonstrably perverse.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the 2[nd] respondentcommitted misappropriation and left the shop . But it is in evidence thatthe petitioner first approached the Labour Officer and getting nofavourable response from the Labour Officer she filed this Shop Appeal .She did it within 16 days of the alleged denial of employment. Thepetitioner was not able to produce any evidence to the effect that the 2[nd]respondent had in fact misappropriated Rs.10,000/- as alleged by her. Infact as against the evidence of the 2[nd] respondent as AW1, the petitionerhas not even found it necessary to examine herself as a witness. She hasonly produced three documents which do not pertain to anymisappropriation on the part of the 2[nd] respondent. The basis of thepetitioner's contention that the 2[nd] respondent voluntarily did not come forwork is that the 2[nd] respondent had misappropriated money from thepetitioner's shop. Therefore unless the petitioner by some cogent evidenceproves that the 2[nd] respondent had in fact misappropriated money, the otherpart of her contention cannot be believed for a moment. Since she was not

even prepared to go into the box to depose that The 2[nd] respondent had infact misappropriated money and therefore she ceased to come for work outof shame, the version of the petitioner cannot be believed at all. That beingso, I do not find any perversity whatsoever in the findings of the 1[st]respondent. The result of the above discussion is that the original petitionis without any merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.

S.SIRI JAGAN .JUDGE

es