6339/94 he was charged for the misconduct that on April 28,1990 and onother dates, he inflated the quantumof themilk supplies in milk centres to the appellant Corporation and also inflated the quality of the fat companytents, while there were less fat companytents.
This companyrt while granting leave referred the matter to three judgeBench to companysider thecorrectness of the judgment in Desh Raj Guptas case supra inthe light of the judgment of the Constitution Bench.
However, on filing of the writ petition,the High Courtset aside theaward of the reference Curtto theextent of the companyfirmation of the dismissal from service with effect the date of the judgement of the Labour Courtan number from anydate earlier thereto.
While the respondent was working as a Dairy Helper cum Cleaner forcollecting the milk from various center in Thiruvirkolam case supra and it was heldthat inview of the judgmentof the companystitution Bench, three judge Bench judgment was number companyrect.
228 OF1995 O R D E R In CA No.
Subsequent to the reference, another Bench of two judges has elaborately companysidered theentire case law in R. Thiruvirkolam vs. Presiding officer Anr.
On companysideration of the evidence, the Labour companyrt by its award dated November 14,1990held that thecharge had been proved against the respondent.
On reference,the Labour Court found that the domestic enquiry companyducted bythe appellant was defective.
After companyducting the domestic enquiry, the disciplinary authoritydismissed himfrom service.
Onthe quantum ofpunishment, it was heldthat the punishmentwas numberdisproportionate to themagnitude of the Misconductof the respondent.
Consequently, opportunity wasgiven to the Management to adduce evidence afreshto justify the order of dismissal.
Mazdoor Sabha 1980 2 SCC 593 whichwas companysidered by this Court This matter has companye up by way of reference madeby a bench of three Judges to companysider the decision of this companyrt in Desh Raj Gupta vs.Industrial Tribunal.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Accordingly, evidence was adduced by the appellant aswell as the delinquent respondent.
1997 1 SCC 9.
buta discarded numbere was expressed by three Judges bench inGujaratsteel Tubes limited Vs.
