THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. Nos.11894, 11920 and 11973 of 2002 COMMON ORDER: These three writ petitions are filed aggrieved by the Award dated 20.2.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Hyderabad in I.D. Nos. 84, 83 and 82 of 1999 respectively. Since common questions of law and fact arise for consideration in these writ petitions, they are disposed of by this common order. Petitioner is the management of A.P. State Seeds Development Corporation. Respondent No.1 in the writ petitions is the workman. They are working as Bradma Operator and Shift Operators respectively. While that being so, a charge was leveled against them, saying that on the night of 14.9.1998, 28 bags of paddy were missing. On receipt of report from the Assistant Manager, the then Managing Director placed them under suspension, pending enquiry, on 18.9.1998. Later, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and the said Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and submitted report, holding them guilty of the charge. On the basis of the Enquiry Officer’s report, a show-cause notice dated 9.10.1998 was issued. On receipt of the said show-cause notice, respondent-workmen requested some more time for submitting their explanation. Though time was granted, they did not submit any explanation. Therefore, considering the entire material available on record, the then Managing Direcor passed orders dated 20.11.1998 terminating the respondent-workmen from service. The appeal filed by them before the Board of Directors against the said orders of termination was also dismissed. Therefore, respondent- workmen raised dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, in I.D. Nos. 84 and 83 of 1999 respectively. It was the case of the respondent-workmen before the Labour Court that the enquiry was not properly conducted and absolutely there was no evidence to hold the petitioner guilty of the charge. Assuming that there is some misconduct attributable to them, the punishment of dismissal/removal from service is unwarranted and the same is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct proved. Petitioner-management filed a counter justifying their action in conducting enquiry and removing respondent-workmen from service. The Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry was vitiated since the petitioner-management failed to follow proper procedure in order to take disciplinary action against the respondent-workmen and, therefore, directed both the parties to lead evidence. In support of the claim petitions, the workmen examined themselves as WW-1 in both the cases and marked documents Exs.W-1 to W-10. On behalf of the management, MWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.M-1 to M-3 were marked. Ex.X-1 was marked as third party document. After detailed consideration of the entire material available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the management failed to prove the charges against the workmen that they have committed theft of 28 bags of paddy on the night of 14.9.1998 at Godown No.6. Further, Ex.W-1 xerox copy of final report in Cr.No.126 of 1998 of IV Town Police Station, Kurnool did not support the version of the management that the respondent-workmen committed theft of paddy bags from godown No.6. As such, the order of termination passed by the management was set aside and the management was directed to reinstate the respondent-workmen with consequential benefits, such as, continuity of service, full backwages and all other benefits. Aggrieved thereby, present writ petitions are filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the Labour Court proceeded with the matter as if it was a criminal case which should have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt and, on mere assumptions and presumptions, came to the conclusion that there was no corroborative evidence except the evidence of management. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, these principles as to proving the charge beyond all reasonable doubt, absence of rebuttal evidence on the part of management etc. are purely principles of criminology and they are not recognized by service law jurisprudence. In a domestic enquiry, mere hearsay evidence can be taken into consideration, if it is true. Further, the sufficiency of evidence also cannot be gone into. Some evidence on record is enough to hold the delinquent guilty of the charge. The Labour Court proceeded with the matter as if it is a criminal case and held that the charges framed against the respondent-workmen are not proved, which is arbitrary and illegal. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- workmen Sri P. Sreedhar strenuously contended that this is a case where the labour Court has rightly came to the conclusion that there was no evidence, worth the name, placed before it and the charges are not proved. No illegality or irregularity has been committed by the Labour Court calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. The simple case of the management is that on 14.9.1998 in the night hours, theft of 41 bags of paddy was committed by respondent-workmen from Godown No.6. The entire award passed by the Labour Court is on presumptions and assumptions. Some of the extracts from the said order passed by the Labour Court are as under: “On perusal of Ex.M-3, letter of the petitioner given to the Asst. Manager, the signature of MW-1 is in that letter to show that the petitioner gave that letter in his presence to the manager. In the light of his admission that he came to know about the giving of separate letter to the Asst. Manager by the petitioner and two others, the Asst. Manager obtained the letter, Ex.M-3 from the petitioner in the absence of MW-1. Further, the first atttestor of theletter Ex.M-3 is also doubtful at that point of time as MW-1 did not claim that the letter was given to the Asst. Manager by the petitioner in his presence. MW-2 is the 2nd respondent attestor of the letter, Ex.M-3 but he did not speak about his attestation in Ex.M-3. He stated that the Manager obtained separate letters from the petitioner and two others. Further he admitted in the cross- examination that the Asst. Manager did not obtain the signatures of the others in the statements of the petitioner and two others. He also stated that he does not know whether the Asst. Manager obtained the signatures of any persons in the statement of the petitioner and also stated that nobody signed as witness in the statement of the petitioner in his presence. So, it is clear that himself or MW-1 did not attest letter, Ex.M-3. However the letter of Ex.M-3 is containing their signatures. So, the Asst. Manager might have obtained the letter Ex.M-3 at different place on different occasion. MW-1 and MW-2 also spoke that the Asst. Manager did not inspect the godown on the date of the incident. The behaviour of the Asst. Manager is appear as unnatural. Suppose if anybody commits theft in the godown, the concerned officers if aware of it, immediately he goes to the spot for verification but the Asst. Manager did not visit the godown even after he came to know about the alleged theft. The reasons are best known to him. In the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that no theft was occurred at godown No.6 and the Asst. Manager has managed to obtain the separate letters from the petitioner by hook and crook method in theft case. Therefore, the letter Ex.M-3 appears as not genuine for the reasons stated above. The attribution against petitioner and two others appears to be that the corporation has not come forward with clean hands to prove the charge. Ex.W-1 is the Xerox copy of the final report in Cr.No.126 of 1998 of IV Town Police Station. The police investigated into the matter and filed a final report and the learned magistrate recorded as ‘undetected’. As per the final report, Ex.W-1, that there is no evidence to connect the accused with the stolen paddy bags and the properties were seized fromgodown but not from the accused and no evidence to establish the identity of the accused. WW-1 is the petitioner. He denied that involvement in theft of paddy bags from godown. He attributed against the 2nd respondent that he implicated this case against him and two others due to personal grudges. He and two others were called to the office on that night by the Asst. Manager and obtained their statements forcibly. Anyhow, the management did not examine the driver of the auto, watchmen and proprietor of the Kalyani Rice Mill from where the Asst. Manager and watchman brought 18 bags of paddy to the godown in order to corroborate their evidence. Further MW-2 stated in the cross-examination that Tirumaleshwar Reddy was at shed No.6 and he sent him to the house of Chandraiah in order to bring him to office. If Tirumaleshwar Reddy was already present there at godown No.6 was it possible for the petitioner and others to commit the theft of paddy bags at that time. It is certainly not possible to commit theft of paddy bags from godown No.6 if Tirumaleshwar Reddy was present there. Therefore it is drawn an inference that the petitioner and two others might have indulged in some other acts and taking advantage of it, the Asst. Manager might have obtained the letters in order to exonerate them might have taken the matter in different manner and attempted to aggravate the same against the petitioner. It is not possible to commit theft of 41 paddy bags from godown No.6 if Tirumaleshwar Reddy was present at godown No.6 and watchman was present at main gate at the time. Therefore it is very clear that the petitioner and two others were implicated due to personal grudges and version of the management that the petitioner and two others have committed theft of 41 paddy bags from godown No.6 is highly unbelievable. MW-3 is the Asst. Manager of 2nd respondent and he is instrumental to implicate the petitioner and two others…….” From the above, it is clear that the Labour Court had proceeded with the matter as if it was dealing with a criminal case and the standard of proof required for proving the charges leveled against the respondent-workmen is such as required in a criminal case. All the respondent-workmen admitted their guilt under Ex.M-3, which was executed by them and sought pardon. This piece of evidence was not believed by the Labour Court saying that it was not attested by the persons purported to have been present while executing and signing that document by the workmen. The workmen never denied execution of Ex.M-3. In a domestic enquiry like this, Ex.M-3 alone was sufficient to hold the workmen guilty of the charge. Nevertheless, the management has conducted enquiry and further adduced documentary evidence to show that the respondent-workmen were involved in theft of 41 bags of paddy. Therefore, this misconduct ought not to have been taken lightly by the Labour Court. The Labour Court erroneously proceeded with the matter as if it is a criminal case and that the strict proof of evidence is required. The evidence on record would establish that the respondent-workmen involved in a misconduct of theft of 28 bags of paddy and further they have admitted the same. There was no necessity for the management to obtain signatures of others when the workmen have voluntarily admitted and gave Ex.M-3 letter. I am of the considered opinion that this is a case where the Labour Court ought not to have held that the charges are not proved, on the basis of some presumptions, assumptions and surmises. The charge leveled against the respondent-workmen has been categorically proved and therefore, they are guilty of the charge leveled against them. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, only thing that needs to be examined is as to whether the punishment of dismissal from service was shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct? Absolutely no previous misconduct has been alleged against the respondent-workmen. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the misconduct of dismissal from service, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, can be said to be shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged and proved and the respondent-workmen are entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and other attendant benefits. However, they are not entitled for any backwages as awarded by the Labour Court. In the result, the impugned orders passed by the Labour Court are modified and it is held that the respondent-workmen are entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and attendant benefits including increments, promotion, seniority etc. but they are not entitled for any backwages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. The three writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: -9-2010. MVB.