O R D E R

The Petitioner challenges the order of the 1^st respondent in TSE-

II/8/2009 dated 15.02.2013. For the sake of convenience, the writ petitioner will be addressed as the Management and the Second Respondent as Workman.

2.The Workman was appointed as a Probationary Assistant, Machine Operator by the Management on 01.04.1996. He was confirmed in service on 26.03.1997. On 03.08.2004, he was made a Machine operator. Till that time, there was no dispute that he was working in a factory and was enjoying the benefits under the Factories Act, 1948.

3.He, thereafter, moved from the Factory's Division of the Management to the Sales Division. He was appointed as a Sales Executive by the Management. He was assigned to promote the sale of heavy vehicles produced by Ashok Leyland Group, in the areas of Cuddalore, Neyveli, Chidambaram, Panrutti and Tindivanam. In other words, he became a Business Promotion Executive for the Management, which had taken dealership with Ashok Leyland Limited. All was well, till the workman procured a sizeable order with M/s. Shree Ramachandra Care Transport. Originally the order was for eight number of vehicles bearing No.AL2516/2TG. The customer was from Hyderabad having operations at Neyvelli. The customer purchased the vehicles taking finance through SREI Equipment Finance Private Limited, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh. The total cost of finance was Rs.1,23,60,000/-. The vehicles, which were actually delivered to M/s. Shree Ramachandra Care Transport was, AL2214/1S. The value of these eight vehicles was only Rs.83,60,800/-.

4.According to the Management, the invoice for eight vehicles of AL2214/1S was raised with the knowledge of the workman. The difference of amount of Rs.33,96,800/- was refunded to the customer by the Management, by means of eight different cheques drawn between 29.02.2008 to 27.05.2008.

5.As against the invoice raised, eight vehicles of AL2214/1S were also delivered to the aforesaid M/s. Shree Ramachandra Care Transport. Nothing would have happened if M/s. Shree Ramachandra Care Transport had honoured its deal with SREI. The cause of action for this case itself would not have arisen. Unfortunately, for the parties to this writ petition, M/s. Shree Ramachandra Care Transport defaulted in payment which triggered this litigation. On coming to note all the default, SREI initiated proceedings and seized the vehicles.

6.At that time, it came to the notice of SREI, that while finance had been taken for AL2516/2TG, what they had actually taken possession of was AL2214/1S. Therefore, the Management was questioned by the Financier about this difference. To this query, the Management responded that the refund had been given to the aforesaid M/s. Shree Ramachandra Care Transport on the basis of a “No Objection Letter” which is said to have been issued by the Financier. A copy of the letter was also given to the Financier. At that stage, it became evident to the Financier that some fraud had taken place and a forged letter had been submitted to the Management to the effect that the Financier has “no objection” for refund of the amount. It is pertinent to point out here that though the letter speaks about Finance Company having “no objection”, there is no difference of opinion between the Management and the Workman that the letter only spoke about “No Objection for refund of discount” and not for the difference of amount. Be that as it may, on basis of this letter, the Management processed the refund. It is on record that the process had taken place in Madurai and that too over a period of three (3) months. The processing happened from Madurai because the Head Office of the Management is situated there.

7. Another fact which is not in dispute is that the Head Office is registered under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947.

8. Having found out about the fraud that have been played, it is the case of the Management that one Sivakumar who was working as a Customer Relations Management Executive, “r