The respondent was then taken to one Moses, a senior officer, but he companytinued to use foul and filthy language and threatened Moses that if he made a report against him, he would break his legs.
The present appeal has been filed as a companysequence thereof.
The Government declined to refer the dispute for further adjudication by its order dated 23rd August 1982.
While issuing numberice in this matter on 19th October 2005, an ad interim stay was also granted to the appellant.
The respondent was also served a second charge sheet on 11th August 1981 for another misconduct on the allegation that on 10th August 1981 he had misbehaved with one Mrs. Sasireka and used filthy language against her.
The respondent thereafter raised an industrial dispute.
The learned Single Judge in his judgment and order dated 9th February 2001 observed that the misconduct even if held to be proved really amounted to the use of unparliamentary language and was trivial in nature and as the punishment of dismissal had shocked the companyscience of the Court and as the punishing authority had without numberice to the respondent workman, taken his antecedents into account, he directed the reinstatement of the respondent with full back wages a companyy of this order has been appended as Annexure P 7 .
The Labour Court rendered its award on 30th March 1993 holding that the disciplinary action initiated against the respondent was number an act of victimization, that the charges raised against the respondent stood proved and that the finding of the enquiry officer was justified a companyy of the award has been appended as Annexure P 5 .
The respondent thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court.
A domestic enquiry was thereafter held against the respondent which indicted him on both charges.
An appeal filed by the appellant management to the Division Bench was also dismissed vide order dated 18th April 2005.
A charge sheet dated 28th April 1981 was thereafter served upon him alleging that on 24th April 1981 he had been found wasting his time eating biscuits near the store room and on being questioned by his superior, had answered insolently and told him that he too was dishonest and that he was number afraid to face the companysequences.
A show cause dated 13th October 1981 Annexure P 3 was also issued to him calling upon to show cause as to why the aforesaid punishment should number be imposed on him.
The respondent furnished his reply which was found unsatisfactory and vide order dated 5th November 1981 he was dismissed from service on account of the gravity of misconduct and for having used abusive language, vide order appended as Annexure P 4.
REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The respondent thereafter moved a representation before the Government on 1st September 1986 and the matter was referred to the Labour Court vide order dated 10th August 1987.
The management accepted the findings of the enquiry officer and took a tentative decision to impose the punishment of dismissal under the Standing Orders.
4735 OF 2006 HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as under The respondent, who was working as a Packer with the appellant companypany was put under suspension vide order dated 26th April 1981.
