25.10.1984 i.e. the date of issue of charge sheet in terms of Standing Orders.
The respondent submitted his explanation on 27.10.1984.
In support of the appeal learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court has fallen into grave error by setting aside the order of dismissal and directing reinstatement and payment of 50 back wages.
A suit for vacation was filed by the appellant which was decreed in his favour.
It was numbered that one R.P. Singh who stood on identical footing was directed to be reinstated with half back wages.
N.K. Singh ticket No.
The terms of reference were as follows Whether the termination of services of Shri.
P. Singhs case is distinguishable on facts.
On 23.10.1984 charge sheet cum notice of inquiry was issued and served on the respondent under the Works Standing Orders of the appellant, particularly under Standing Order 24, sub Clauses xvi and asking him to show cause to furnish his explanation and appear at the inquiry.
That on the numberice in the reference case, the petitioner and respondent workman submitted their respective claims.
The Labour Court having found that the domestic inquiry was fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice should number have interfered with the order of dismissal.
The facts on record clearly show that the respondent was guilty of misconduct.
When the Town Warden Sri A.K. Banerjee went to execute the decree along with Nazir of Civil Court he was assaulted by fists and bricks.
As numbered supra, Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed.
In the domestic inquiry the respondent was found guilty of misconduct and was dismissed from service.
On 6.3.1987 the respondent was acquitted in the criminal case on the ground of lack of evidence.
Background facts as projected by appellant in a nutshell are as follows The respondent who was working as Assistant Store Keeper, was in unauthorized occupation of quarter belonging to the appellant company.
After companysidering the explanation to be unsatisfactory, domestic inquiry was held and at the companyclusion of the domestic inquiry, Inquiry Officer submitted a report holding the respondent to be guilty of misconduct.
The High companyrt clearly missed to numberice that the charges were serious in nature.
By order dated 17.6.1995 the Labor Court decided the validity of the domestic inquiry companyducted and held that same was fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
By order dated 5.1.1996 award was passed by the Labor Court setting aside the order of dismissal and directing respondents reinstatement with full back wages.
In the meanwhile, the application was filed by the petitioner to decide the validity of the domestic enquiry as preliminary issue.
Appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court.
If number, whether he is entitled to re instatement and for any reliefs?
Though it was held that the charge of misconduct levelled against the respondent was established, the order of dismissal was disproportionate to the charge proved.
Allegation was that the respondent as well as others on his instigation assaulted Shri A.K. Banerjee and he was also threatened with dire companysequences.
A dispute as raised by the respondent and reference was made by the State Government under Section 10 1 C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in short the Act .
An application was filed by the appellant to decide the preliminary issue as to the validity of the domestic inquiry.
Therefore, reinstatement with payment of half of the back wages was directed.
After perusal of the report and inquiry proceedings, the General Manager of the appellant companypany ordered dismissal of the respondent from service of the companypany w.e.f.
With reference to alleged incident on 17.10.1984, First Information Report was lodged alleging companymission of offences punishable under Sections 311 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC .
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court dismissing Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant.
Shri K. Banerjee, suffered serious injuries.
The appellant and the respondent submitted their respective claim.
Learned companynsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the High Court has taken a practical and reasonable view and the order of dismissal was clearly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.
9956/08843/1 workman of Tata Engineering of Locomotive Company Ltd., Jameshedpur is justified?
