Accordingly, relying upon the inquiry report, the respondent was dismissed from service.
When the Assistant cashier refused, the respondent abused him and threatened to assault him.
By the order of Vth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, dated 31st of October, 2003, the order of dismissal passed by the appellants against Provash Chandra Mondal respondent No.2 hereinafter referred to as the respondent was set aside.
It was further held that the charge sheet had number disclosed the specific abusive language used by the respondent and without recording such language, the charge sheet was bad.
It was alleged by the appellants that the respondent had developed a habit of misconducting himself in an undesirable manner despite opportunities being given to rectify his companyduct.
On 4th of August 1984, a charge sheet was issued against the respondent on charges of major misconduct, namely, instigation, insubordination and using of abusive and filthy languages against his superiors and dilatory tactics, which are major misdemeanor in terms of Section L Appendix D of the certified standing orders of the appellant Company, which are reproduced below Appendix D Clause 2 Major Misdemeanor Willful insubordination or disobedience of any lawful and reasonable order of a superior, Willful slowing down in performance of work Commission of any act subversive of good behavior or of the discipline of the companypany Instigation, incitement, abetment or furtherance of the forgoing punishable as major misdemeanor By the charge sheet, the respondent was called upon to submit his explanation and he was suspended from service with payment of subsistence allowance pending inquiry.
Submissions made by the learned companynsel for the appellants were strongly companytested by the learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
Both the parties filed their written statements presenting their cases before the Tribunal and on 9th of October, 1990 the Tribunal held that the inquiry companyducted by Mr. P. K. Mukheree, the Inquiry Officer, was in violation of the principles of natural justice and accordingly the matter was heard afresh on merits.
In companyrse of examination of the witnesses of the appellants, a witness specifically mentioned the abusive and slang language used by the respondent which was recorded in vernacular.
The respondent through a letter dated 22nd of November, 1985 admitted all the charges and sought companydonation and mercy attributing his acts to his mental illness which was number companysidered by the appellants on account that the respondent was on earlier occasion also charged with similar grounds and was given a chance to amend his companyduct.
It also directed the reinstatement of the respondent with full back wages.
The learned companynsel for the respondent companytended that the respondent was denied a fair hearing and was dismissed in violations of the principles of natural justice.
The respondent filed his written explanation on 6th of August, 1984 to the charge sheet which being found unsatisfactory, an inquiry companymittee was companystituted with Mr. P.K.Mukherjee the companypany lawyer as the Inquiry Officer who submitted his report on 29th of August, 1985 following domestic inquiry and held that the respondent was guilty of major misconduct.
The respondent was also examined and cross examined.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellants preferred an appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court which also dismissed the same on 30th of September, 2005 affirming the order of the learned Single Judge on a finding that the charge sheet did number companytain the specific materials in detail.
Feeling aggrieved by the Order of the High Court, the appellants have filed these special leave petitions which, on grant of leave, were heard in the presence of the learned companynsel for the parties.
The appellants subsequently challenged the aforesaid order of the Vth Industrial Tribunal by filing a writ petition before the High Court which was dismissed on 4th of October, 2004 without assigning any reasons of its own.
Furthermore, it was companytended that the charges framed were number vague or unintelligible and were serious cases of misconduct.
disobedient in number carrying out the orders of his superiors.
Here the charge against the respondent was that he in a drunken state along with the companyductor went to the Assistant Cashier in the cash room of the appellant and demanded money from him.
Subsequent to this, the dispute was referred under Section 7A of the Industrial Disputes Act on 2nd of April, 1987 by the Labour Department, Government of West Bengal to the Vth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal for adjudication.
Pursuant to the order of the High Court, after remand, the Vth Industrial Tribunal heard the matter on the basis of the same evidence on record and by an order dated 31st of October 2003 held that the respondent was illegally terminated by the appellants and the dismissal order was number justified and hence liable to be set aside.
The witnesses of the appellants were examined and cross examined.
It passed the order on the basis of the findings of the Tribunal and held that the companyrt in exercise of its jurisdiction was number authorised to re appreciate the findings of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the appellant had failed to establish by companyent evidence that the respondent had developed the habit of being negligent in his duties and using abusive language.
The respondent challenged the order of the Tribunal before the High Court by filing a writ petition and by an order dated 12th of October 1999, the order of the Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration on the basis of existing evidence but only with respect to charge number 1, viz.,
TARUN CHATERJEE, J. The judgment and order dated 30th of September, 2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court affirming the judgment and order dated 4th of October, 2004 of a learned Judge of the same High Court and the order dated 31st of October, 2003 of the Vth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal is under challenge before us at the instance of Biecco Lawrie Ltd. and another, the appellants herein.
The respondent was appointed as general mazdoor in the Switch Gear works of the appellants and his duty, inter alia, was to bring materials from the shop rack to the working benches and afterwards to take them to their respective racks.
These witnesses were also examined by the respondent.
The Vth Industrial Tribunal, on companysideration of the Inquiry Report and evidence on record, affirmed the order of dismissal passed against the respondent and gave a reasoned order whereby it specifically found the charges leveled against the respondent deemed to have been proved and while doing so had also taken into companysideration the prior companyduct of the respondent.
