COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) 4307/2001 (Old No. 35036/1997) H.S. Rawat ………Petitioners Versus Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur & Other ………..Respondents Sri Lalit Belwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner/workman. Sri Alok Mehra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Manoj Tiwari, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 2/employer. 15 th July, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 2.1.1997 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Kanpur. Following reference was made by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India to the Central Labour Court, Kanpur for adjudication: Whether the action of the management of LIC of India, Lucknow in imposing the penalty of reduction of salary to the minimum in the time scale on Sri Harsh Singh Rawat, Assistant vide order dated 23.4.1983 is justified? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled to? 2. The Labour Court vide the impugned award dated 2.1.1997 held that the punishment awarded to the concerned workman is justified and he is not entitled to any relief. 2. I have perused the impugned award dated 2.1.1997. The Labour Court while deciding the preliminary issue regarding fairness and propriety of domestic enquiry conducted against the workman held that the enquiry was held fairly and properly. The Labour Court further observed as under: “Thus, on the one hand there had been defective evidence of the management whereas on the other hand, there had been evasive reply by the concerned workman. In between the two, in my opinion, the evidence of the management was of much better quality. Hence, the enquiry officer had rightly arrived at the conclusion against the concerned workman by accepting the evidence of management. 4. Thereafter, Labour Court answered the reference in negative against the workman without giving any clear cut finding. The impugned award has been passed without thorough examination of the matter and the same is not in true perspective of law. As such, impugned award is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. Matter is remanded back to the Labour Court. The Labour Court shall decide the dispute afresh and shall give the specific finding. Writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 15.7.2008 Prabodh