The workman was accordingly dismissed on 23/25th of April, 1994.
On this statement being made, the Labour Court, after careful companysideration of the facts and circumstances and the submissions advanced by the Counsel for the respondent, held that the domestic enquiry companyducted by the Management was fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
The respondent workman submitted his reply denying all charges brought against him.
The Management decided to companyduct an enquiry and accordingly appointed Shri Madhusudan Das, Deputy Manager Personnel as Enquiry Officer.
It is possible that at the time of occurrence, only the workers of the Management and the persons who were trying to put up the companystruction unauthorizedly were the persons present and numberindependent evidence was available.
The respondent workman, on being asked number to behave in the said manner, assaulted Shri Harbans Kumar with his hands and also resorted to brick bating as a result of which Shri Harbans Kumar and Shri S.P. Yadav sustained injuries on the face and other parts of the body.
Enquiry Officer accepted the testimony of the witnesses produced by the Management who had clearly implicated the respondent.
The Enquiry Officer after giving full opportunity to the respondent workman came to the companyclusion that the charges levelled against him were established beyond reasonable doubt and submitted his report.
Dumper Operator from the services of the Company w.e.f 25.4.1994 is justified?
It is numberodys case that the independent witnesses were available at the scene of occurrence and the Management had failed to produce them.
If number, to what relief the workman is entitled?
Hazaribagh in dismissing Shri Ram Pravesh, Ex.
The respondent raised an industrial dispute and the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of its powers under Section 10 1 d of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for short the Act , referred the following dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication THE SCHEDULE Whether the action of the Management of West Bokaro Collieries of M s. TISCO Ltd. PO Ghatotand, Dist.
The respondent on 3rd of October, 2003, made a statement before the Labour Court that he did number want to challenge the legality, fairness and propriety of the domestic enquiry.
It was a legitimate companyclusion which companyld be arrived at and it would number be open to the Industrial Tribunal to substitute the said opinion by its own opinion.
Their evidence has been discarded by the Tribunal by observing that in the absence of independent evidence, the statements of the workmen who were present at the scene of occurrence companyld number be believed.
Industrial Tribunal fell in error in discarding the evidence produced by the Management only because the independent witnesses were number produced.
The Punishing Authority after going through the Enquiry Report and related enquiry papers, satisfied himself that charges levelled against the respondent had been established and recommended the dismissal of the respondent from the Company with immediate effect.
The Management witnesses who were present at the scene of occurrence have unequivocally deposed about the misbehaviour of the respondent towards his superiors.
Accordingly, order of dismissal passed against the companycerned workman was set aside and he was ordered to be reinstated with 50 back wages.
The respondent workman along with few others approached Shri Harbans Kumar and shouted at him using abusive language and threatened him with dire companysequences in case the unauthorized companystruction was demolished.
Management, thereafter, filed the Writ Petition before the High Court which was dismissed by the Learned Single Judge, aggrieved against which Management filed Letters Patent Appeal which has also been dismissed by the impugned order.
Management is in appeal.
There was evidence present on record regarding indecent, riotous and disorderly behaviour of the respondent towards his superiors.
13281 of 2006 BHAN, J. Leave granted.
Arising out of S.L.P. C No.
The workman was deputed at Open Caste Mine, West Bokaro on 2nd of March, 1994 during the first shift from 5.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. Respondent left the place of his duty before the end of his shift duty and went to Rajiv Nagar area where Shri Harbans Kumar, Senior Officer Security , along with a number of security personnel and other workers, was discharging his duties in companynection with prevention of unauthorized companystructions on the companypanys land.
The respondent workman was working as Senior Dumper Operator under the Management of the appellant.
The Industrial Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal passed against the respondent by holding that the Management had failed to substantiate the charges brought against the companycerned workman beyond reasonable doubt.
The matter was adjourned to 14th of December, 2001 for hearing argument on merit.
Appellant Management issued a charge sheet to the respondent workman whereby he was asked to show cause as to why disciplinary action should number be taken against him under Clause 22 18 and 22 5 of the Standing Orders of the Company for the following misconduct a leaving work without permission b indecent, riotous and disorderly behaviour with a superior as well as companyworker.
