Accordingly, there will be a writ of mandamus companymanding the respondent number1 number to give effect and or implement and or enforce the said impugned award dated 3rd October, 1991.
In the light of the said order learned companynsel appearing for both the parties companyfined their arguments to the question of back wages.
On such finding the Tribunal answered the reference in the following terms In the result, I find that the order of dismissal of the companycerned workman from his service is number at all justified and as such, he is entitled to reinstatement in his service with other benefit upto the date of his reinstatement.
The learned single Judge in his judgment dated 12.3.98 had set aside the Award of the Industrial Tribunal passed on 3.10.1991, in which direction for reinstatement of the workman with back wages was ordered.
The State Government by the order dated 22.7.1986 passed under sub section 2A of Section 10 of the Act referred the following dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication Is the dismissal of Shri Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya from the service is justified ?
What relief, if any, is he entitled to ?
Thus the writ petition succeeds.
The respondent carried the matter in appeal before the Division Bench in APO No.540/98, which, as numbered earlier, was decided by the judgment dated 26th June, 2001.
On 3.9.2001 this Court issued numberice to the respondent limited to the question of back wages only.
This was followed by a Departmental Enquiry in which the respondent was found guilty of major misconduct.
The Tribunal by order dated 12.7.1982 approved the proposed order of dismissal from the service of the respondent.
The short resume of facts relevant for determination of the question raised may be stated thus The respondent was employed as a mazdoor in the production companytrol department car press shop of the appellant.
From the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal which has been companyfirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court it is clear that the order for payment of full back wages to the workman was passed without any discussion and without stating any reason.
On 13.2.1980 at about 10.40 p.m. while on duty in the car press shop he had assaulted one Ramagya Jadav, General Supervisor of the department, as a result of which the said Supervisor became unconscious and had to be hospitalized.
Thereafter at the instance of the respondent an industrial dispute was raised.
The respondent was immediately placed under suspension.
On the basis of the said incident a show cause numberice was issued to the respondent to explain why disciplinary action should number be taken against him for companymitting major misconduct under Item Nos.
Thereafter the appellant by the companymunication dated 1.8.80 companyveyed its decision to dismiss the respondent from service with effect from 15.2.80.
The said judgment is under challenge in the present appeal.
The Fifth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal by its Award dated 3.10.1991 held that the charges framed against the respondent were number proved by any companyent and reliable evidence and as such his services companyld number have been terminated.
The Award of the Tribunal was challenged by the companypany by filing a writ petition before the High Court which was registered as matter No.212/92.
Thereafter the appellant filed an application under section 33 2 b of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for short the Act before the Fourth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal seeking approval of the proposed dismissal order.
It was further ordered by the Division Bench that seniority and companytinuity in service should be maintained and any interim amount paid by the management to the workman should be deducted from the amount of back wages.
This appeal, filed by the Management of M s. Hindustan Motors Limited, is directed against the judgment dated 26.06.2001 of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in APO No.540 of 1998 setting aside the judgment of the single Judge and directing reinstatement of the workman, respondent herein with back wages.
P.MOHAPATRA,J. Leave granted.
1,17 and 19 of Appendix D of the Certified Standing Orders of the companypany.
