Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

I have come to know that during the pendency of I.D. No. 17 of 1982, Thiru Sudarsanam Daniel, the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Madras, has enjoyed hospitality as a guest of the respondent management along with his family members and relatives. Thiru Sundarsanam Daniel has stayed in the guest house belonging to the first respondent management at Manavalakurichi, Kanyakumari District, from 19-8-1982 to 22-8-1982. Further, a car belonging to the first respondent management bearing registration No. KLU 440 was placed at the disposal of Thiru Sundarsanam Daniel and has been used by him and his family members and relatives during their stay at Manavalakurichi. The car has been used by Mr. Sudarsanam Daniel and his family members for their sojourn to places like Trivandrum and Tuticorin. Along with Thiru Sundarsanam Daniel and his family, his cousin Thiru Selvin Paul, Assistant Engineer, TWAD, Tuticorin had stayed in the management guest house with his family. During their stay in the first respondent's guest house, the wife of Thiru Sudarsanam Daniel has distributed Christian literature to the public living in the coastal area.
The sixth respondent has come to be added as a party in that writ petition only in view of this allegation.

4. So far as the sixth respondent is concerned, he would deny everything in his counter-affidavit except that he stayed in the guest house of the first respondent from 9-00. p.m. on 20-8-1982 to 7.00 a.m. on 22-8-1982 and would say that this had nothing to do with the passing of the award and that he had rendered the award purely on the merits of the claims and contenti6ns of the parties. He would state that he conducted an enquiry in another matter in I.D. No. 1 of 1982 on the 19th and 20th of August, 1982 by staying in the tourist bungalow at Nagercoil and that on 20th night he with his family left Nagercoil and reached the guest house of the first respondent at Manavalakurichi and stayed there as mentioned above. He would deny that he used the company's car KLU 440 during his stay and state that he had made his own arrangement to go to Manavalakurichi which is just 16 miles off Nagercoil: He would deny that he with his family went to Trivandrum and Tuticorin by using the company's car. His statement is that he reached Tirunelveli on the evening of 22-8-1982 and returned to Madras by Nellai Express after two days' stay at Tuticorin. He has also denied that his wife has distributed Christian literature to the public living in the coastal area during those days. Then, he continues to state as follows:

My family consists of only myself and my wife. I have no commitments in my life and I have been leading a peaceful and contended life as a Judicial Officer throughout my career.

5. We find here that the appellant would start with an allegation of great magnitude which would get dwindled into insignificance. The allegation made by Thulasi in his additional affidavit is that the sixth respondent had used the company's car to go to Trivandrum and Tuticorin during the days from 19-8-1982 to 22-8-1982. But, he is not consistent in this regard. In the subsequent reply affidavit filed by him after seeing the counter-affidavit of the sixth respondent, he has given up the allegation that the sixth respondent used the company's car to go to Trivandrum and has stated restrictively that the sixth respondent used the company's car to go to Tuticorin only, during those days. As regards the use of the car by the sixth respondent to go the Trivandrum, Thulasi would seek to say in his reply affidavit that it was from 20-10-1982 to 22-10-1982. This aspect of the allegation has not been made by Thulasi in his earlier additional affidavit dated 11-11-1982 though the alleged use of the car at Trivandrum is said to have taken place prior to his affidavit dated 11-11-1982. The allegation that the sixth respondent had used the. Company's car from 20-10-1982 to 22-10-1982 at Trivandrum seems to have been made by Thulasi probably after coming to know that the sixth respondent did not go to Trivandrum during the period from 20-8-1982 to 22-8-1982. However, if really the sixth respondent had used the company's car in October, 1982 for his stay at Trivandrum, this could have been readily mentioned by Thulasi or James in their earlier affidavits. So far as the sixth respondent is concerned, he has strongly denied the allegation that he had used the company's car at any time and has caregorically stated that this allegation is false. Govinda Pillai the Works Manager of the first respondent company has also denied in his counter-affidavit that the company's car KLU 440 was utilised by the sixth respondent and his family members during the period from 20-8-1982 to 22-8-1982 to visit Trivandrum and Tuticorin. The management of the first respondent has clearly proved, on production of the register relating to the car KLU 440, that the car was used by the Directors of the first respondent company and not by the sixth respondent during the relevant time. When evidently, the sixth respondent had not utilised the company's car on any one of the days as alleged in the affidavit of Thulasi, it has to be said that this allegation has been hatched up with the evil intention of attributing some bias against the sixth respondent and to have the award rendered by the sixth respondent somehow set aside.