THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.13047 of 1998 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the award made in I.D.No.67 of 1994 dated 3.12.1997 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, whereunder the claim petition filed under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was allowed and the dismissal order passed against the second respondent was set aside and further directed the petitioner-management to reinstate the workman with back wages and continuity of service and other attendant benefits and costs of Rs.500/-. Petitioner is Management and second respondent is Workman. It appears, the respondent-workman was appointed as Maistry in the petitioner organization. However, according to the petitioner- management, since the respondent-workman did not attend to duties properly, two charge sheets dated 6.9.1993 and 19.11.1993 were issued stating that due to his carelessness, 195 pieces of ECCO Shuttles were found rejected due to grooving defect which caused loss to the management (loss caused appears to be Rs.13,000/-). Further, the workman refused to obey the lawful instructions of the management to go over to Calcutta to convince the customers about the fitness of the shuttles for being consumed by the customers. It was also stated that the second respondent suffered several punishments in his career and his past record was full of punishments. Thereafter, the workman was suspended and an enquiry was launched and the enquiry officer found that the charges leveled against the workman proved and on the basis of the report of the enquiry officer, the workman was dismissed from service by order dated 15.10.1993. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent-workman raised Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.67 of 1994 before the Industrial Tribunal-Labour Court under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Before the Labour Court, the case of the workman was that his services were terminated arbitrarily without conducting proper enquiry and no plausible reasons were furnished for dismissing him from service, except stating that the charges are proved. According to the workman, the dismissal order passed is highly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. Though there are only two allegations against the workman, namely, he failed to supervise properly the manufacture of ECCO Shuttles to avoid development of grooving defect and the workman failed to go to Calcutta in terms of the orders of the management. But the Enquiry Officer has put up (9) charges as having been proved. Therefore, the dismissal order passed against him is liable to be set aside. Petitioner-management resisted the same by denying the allegations made by the workman. The Labour Court, on detailed consideration of the pleadings and material made available on record, and after hearing both parties, found fault with the very findings of the Enquiry Officer and the dismissal order and held that the enquiry conducted by the management was not valid and further in view of the fact that the enquiry itself was not conducted properly, the dismissal order is liable to be set aside. While setting aside the dismissal order, the Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the workman, with back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits and also awarded costs of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved by the said award, management filed the present writ petition. In this regard, it is necessary to notice the findings recorded by the Labour Court, which reads as under: “At this stage, it is also necessary to remark that the enquiry report found the employee guilty of as many as 9 charges characterized as offences of major misdemeanor. In fact, there were only two allegations against the workman namely that he failed to supervise properly the manufacture of ECCO Shuttles to avoid the development of grooving defect and the workman failed to go to Calcutta in terms of the orders of the management. Upon these two allegations, the enquiry officer built up 9 charges as having been proved. This approach is totally erroneous and the findings magnified the misdemeanor of the workman. This magnification might have prompted the disciplinary authority to pass a drastic order of dismissal, the propriety of which will be dealt with under point No.2. For the present, it is sufficient to hold that the findings in the enquiry report have to be evaluated, naturally, with reference to only the two allegations against the employee. The first allegation is merely slackness in supervision. But the enquiry officer failed to take into account the explanation given by the workman. The workman clearly stated that there was defect in the machine and that he reported the matter to the supervisor. Though the supervisor R.V.Ramana was examined in the enquiry, the enquiry officer did not verify with the said supervisor, the correctness of the contention of the workman that he reported about the defect in the machine to the supervisor. The enquiry officer relied upon the explanation of the workman marked as Ex.M2 to say that the workman confessed. But that is not a confession at all. On the other hand, he qualified his admission by saying that the rejection of the articles was not on account of him. In his findings, the enquiry officer could not have relied upon such equivocal statement. In fact, the enquiry officer jumped to the conclusion and also framed an additional charge to the effect that the workman falsely stated about the machine defect and he failed to give information to the supervisor. When there was no charge about his lapse in informing the supervisor and when that fact was not put to the supervisor examined by the enquiry officer, the enquiry officer clearly erred in creating additional charge against the workman with the material that he encountered and wrongly comprehended by him during the course of enquiry. Thus, the enquiry suffers from perversity inasmuch as the findings of the enquiry officer did not stick to the two allegations actually leveled against the workman. The second charge against the workman is that he did not obey the orders of the management to go to Calcutta, but in his explanation to the second charge sheet, the workman stated that he was not well. This explanation was not at all taken into consideration. In fact, if we go by the pleadings in this Tribunal, the management has gone to the extent of saying that the workman refused to go to Calcutta even when he was so advised by the enquiry officer. Thus, the disciplinary proceedings against the workman did not observe any rhythm but it proceeded in different directions without confining itself to the only charge that was in existence at the time of inception of the enquiry. Even the second charge of refusing to go to Calcutta had come into existence after the enquiry on the first charge was ordered. Thus, it cannot but be held that the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse and devoid of proper reasons that prompted him to hold that both the charges against the workman are proved. The conclusions of the enquiry officer appear to have been based upon inadmissible evidence as also conjectures and surmises besides being based upon extraneous material and hence liable to be set aside. Now coming to the dismissal order, it is clearly based upon the so called past record of the workman, but the management did not frame any charge in regard to the past record for the purpose of making use of the same as an input for the dismissal order. Thus, I am firmly of the opinion that the dismissal order is not sustainable both on account of the perverse findings of the enquiry officer as also on the ground of extraneous material having weighed with the punishing authority. Point No.2: As the very findings of the enquiry officer as also the dismissal order are faulted in the discussion supra, the question under this point does not arise. Point No.3: In view of the findings under point No.1, the dismissal order is liable to be set aside, consequently the punishment imposed against the workman also is liable to be set at naught. Accordingly, an award is passed directing the management to reinstate the workman with back wages and continuity of service and other attendant benefits and costs of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only)”. From the above, it is clear that neither the enquiry was properly conducted nor the dismissal order passed by the petitioner-management can be said to be proportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. The misconduct alleged against the workman was neither exhibited before the Labour Court nor before this Court, except making vague allegations by a responsible officer of the petitioner-management. Further, it is unfortunate that even if the matter is to be remanded, it would not serve any purpose as the workman would have already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, therefore, the question of reinstatement does not arise. Under those circumstances, instead of remanding the matter to the Labour Court for the purpose of conducting enquiry into the matter afresh, I deem it appropriate to modify the order passed by the Labour Court, as under: “In the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner- management is directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, 50% back wages and other attendant benefits. While calculating the back wages, the amounts already paid shall be given credit to. It is needless to mention that the respondent- workman is entitled for all the retiral benefits, as if he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation.” Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 10.2.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.13047 of 1998 10.2.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.13047 of 1998 Date: 10th February, 2010 Between: M/s Synthetic Pollywood Industries Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director. .. Petitioner And Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, rep. by its Presiding Officer and another. .. Respondents