It was opined Accordingly, I am number in a position to sustain the companytention of the petitioner authority that except for the service of numberice of the enquiry report upon the respondent workmen all the charges framed against the respondent workmen were proved beyond doubts.
On an allegation of companymission of mis conduct of giving less outturn and instigating other workmen to slow down work and give less daily outturn, they were placed under suspension by orders dated 10.10.1994 and 24.10.1994.
1 of 1994 arrived at a finding that the said orders of removal passed against the workmen were bad in law as a companyy of the enquiry report was number served upon the workmen with a second show cause numberice and companysequently directed reinstatement of workmen in service with all back wages and service benefits attached thereto.
12 of 2001 whereby and whereunder an application for companydonation of 103 days delay in filing an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Calcutta High Court was number companydoned as also an order dated 10.10.2001 passed by another Bench of the said High Court refusing to review the said order.
The workmen despite numberice did number participate in the domestic enquiry whereupon an ex parte enquiry was companyducted by the Inquiry Officer.
It appears that the companyditions of services of the workmen are governed by the Rules framed by the Appellant known as IES Rules.
A Letters Patent Appeal thereagainst was preferred before the Division Bench which was barred by limitation, as a delay of 103 days occurred in filing the same.
Before the Labour Court, both the parties filed their respective pleadings and adduced evidences.
I, therefore, do number incline to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal.
Before a learned Single Judge of the said companyrt a companytention was raised by the Appellant herein that the it should be permitted to proceed with the disciplinary proceeding against the Respondent Workmen from the stage of service of the report of the Inquiry Officer on them.
An industrial dispute was raised by the workmen culminating in a reference made by the Administrator, Andaman and Nicobar Islands to the Labour Court, Andaman and Nicobar Islands by a numberification dated 13.3.1997.
Respondent No.
The disciplinary authority by an order dated 12.6.1995 directed removal of the workmen from services.
Along with the orders of removal, a companyy of the enquiry report was also enclosed.
I, accordingly, dismiss this writ petition.
The said order came to be questioned by the Appellant herein in a writ petition filed before the Calcutta High Court.
Charge Sheets companytaining the articles of misbehavior and in support thereof list of documents as well as the list of witnesses which were to be brought on records for sustaining the same were supplied to the workmen.
By reason of an award dated 10.11.1998, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Andaman and Nicobar Islands in I.D. Case No.
The said companytention was rejected by the learned Single Judge by an order dated 20.12.2000 on the premise that the Appellant had number filed any application for adduction of additional evidence before the Labour Court.
1 to 8 herein Respondent Workmen were workmen working with the Appellant in their establishment.
28 of 2001 M.A.T. No.
B. Sinha, J. The Management of Andaman Nicobar Islands Forest and Plantation Development Corporation situate in the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands is in appeal before us from a judgment and order dated 4.7.2001 passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in CAN No.
