The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the Shop Appellate Authority to re-appraise evidence and the power to permit parties to adduce evidence in an employment dispute.

J.B. Koshy, J.

Appellant, second respondent in the Original Petition, was employed as a Civil Assistant in the first respondent Trust (petitioner in the Original Petition). He was served with a charge sheet containing several charges. An enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice regarding the charges. The enquiry officer found that only charge No. 2 was proved against the appellant. The proved charge was as follows;

"On 15.7.1989, Rs.8,000/- was received from judgment debtors in O.S. No. 227/86 before principal Sub Court, Ernakulam. but the delinquent had remitted Rs. 5,000/- only in the office of Mutual Aid Bankers, Pullepady, Cochin-18. Thus there is misconduct and misappropriation on the part of the delinquent."

2. The case of the appellant before me enquiry officer was that an amount of Rs. 8,000/- was received from the judgment debtors in O.S. No. 227 of 1986 before the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulum, on 15.7.1989 by the Deputy Manager of the employer Trust. According to him, Sri. P.B. Mohankumar, Advocate who appeared for the employer handed over the above amount to the Deputy Manager. The Deputy Manager entrusted the appellant to enter Rs. 5000/- in the accounts and he has entered Rs. 5,000/-accordingly. In the enquiry Deputy Manager was examined and he admitted that he received the amount of Rs. 8000/-from the Advocate and he asked the Clerk to account for Rs. 5000/- and he himself is detaining the balance Rs. 3000/-. Therefore, it was the contention of the appellant that there was a specific direction of the Deputy Manager who was the superior to account Rs. 5,000/- and that was accounted. When Deputy Manager admitted that the balance Rs. 3000/- is detained with him there is no misappropriation. The enquiry officer found as follows:

"The delinquent is not expected load or commit illegitimate-or illegal acts which will hamper the best interest of the institution in which he is employed. His explanation that he was strictly directed by EW2 to write false account is not satisfactory explanation and hence lam not inclined to accept his version. I am of the opinion, in the aforesaid circumstances, that the delinquent is partly to the misappropriation of Rs. 3000/-."

On the basis of the above findings he was dismissed from service.

3. Against the dismissal order, appellant filed an appeal before the Shop Appellate Authority under S. IX(2) of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 19(i() (hereinafter referred to as 'the act) and the shop appeal was numbered as S.A. No. 4 of 1992. The Shop Appellate Authority found that enquiry was conducted fairly and properly. Thai means there was no denial of opportunity to both sides, employer and employee, to adduce whatever evidence they would like to adduce. But the Shop Appellate Authority found that findings of the enquiry officer are perverse. The Shop Appellate Authority considered the evidence and depositions of the Deputy Manager in cross-examination and found as follows:

"The depositions of the Deputy Manager of the respondent Bankers is a categorical admission that the amount received from the judgment debtors in O.S. No. 227/86 was received by him from Advocate P.B. Mohankumar and that the balance amount of Rs. 3000-after crediting Rs.5000/- is with him". After quoting the depositions again it was held as follows:

"The above deposition shows that the appellant was instructed to enter in the suit ledger Rs.5000/- only out of Rs.8000/- received in O.S. No. 227/86 and been lriesmadc in the suit lodger by the appellant were in accordance with the specific direction of the Deputy Manager of the respondent Bankers. There is also evidence to show that the Deputy Manager has been managing the entire affairs of the respondent Bankers in the relevant period...."

Ext. D1 I was copy of the suit. In the suit itself it is stated that Sri. P.L. Frixes, Deputy Manager was the Convener of the Trust and the managing trustees having other commitme