THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.520 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the award dated 12.07.2004 made in I.D.No.230 of 2002 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, whereunder the order of removal of the petitioner from service passed by the first respondent- General Manager, M/s.Glaxo Smithkline Beechem Consumer Health Care on the allegation of certain misconduct was confirmed. It appears initially the petitioner was appointed as Badli worker in 1974 under the first respondent management and thereafter he was promoted as Grade-I operator in 1991. He worked for 30 years under the first respondent without any blemish. While that being so, on 18.03.2002, when the petitioner attended to the duties allotted to him during ‘A’ shift, he was asked to get W1 and W2 tanks cleaned after taking out the fuses by utilizing the services of a badli worker. While the badli worker was attending to the cleaning work, someone switched on the agitator, on account of which, the badli worker sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner at the very inception of the enquiry, admitted his guilt of not removing the fuses. However, enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was held to be guilty of the charge and was removed from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner raised a dispute under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. It was the case of the petitioner before the Labour Court that he was not permitted by the Enquiry Officer to examine the important witnesses and certain questions were remained unanswered and that he had not done anything deliberately. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not the case of the first respondent management that the petitioner has switched on the agitator, and therefore, the badli worker received the injuries. It is not known as to who had switched on agitator and who had stopped it. Though the petitioner admitted his guilt at the beginning of the enquiry, enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was removed from service holding that the charges were proved. Therefore, the punishment of removal of the petitioner from service is grossly disproportionate to the charge leveled against the petitioner. He further contended that the Labour Court has not properly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and did not exercise the powers vested in it as per law. On the other hand, Sri Ch.Dhanamjaya, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, strenuously contended that the petitioner though an experienced operator failed to remove the fuses at the time of cleaning W1 and W2 tanks, which is very grave misconduct on his part. Due to the said act, the cleaner of the tanks would have died on the spot, and therefore, the management has not committed any error in removing the petitioner from service, and the impugned award does not call for any interference by this Court. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused impugned award and other material available on record. Admittedly, prior to the removal of the petitioner from service, there were no allegations of misconduct against him during his 30 years of service rendered with the management. It is not the case of the first respondent management that the petitioner has switched on the agitator, and therefore, the cleaner of the boilers received injuries. Of course, the agitator was switched off immediately. In fact, the petitioner admitted his mistake with regard to not taking off the fuses at the time of cleaning the boilers. But, some unknown person, even according to the petitioner, had switched on the agitator, which resulted in the accident. The petitioner was little bit negligent in taking of the fuses, but that itself does not mean that he has done anything intentionally. Once the petitioner admitted his mistake, the first respondent management could have taken lenient view of the matter or atleast the Tribunal could have exercised its powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 while considering the proportionality of the punishment. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the Labour Court failed to do so in this matter. Generally speaking, in case of disproportionate punishment, the matter needs to be remanded to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration, but in the instant case, since for more than eight years the petitioner has been out of service, therefore, to meet the ends of justice and to give a quietus to the litigation, I am of the opinion that the matter needs to be decided by this Court. Therefore, the order of removal passed by the first respondent management, and confirmation of the same by the Labour Court through the impugned award are set aside and the writ petition is accordingly allowed directing the first respondent management to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, but without backwages and the services during the period of removal and the date of reinstatement shall be treated as continuation for the purpose of retiral benefits. It is also made clear that the petitioner is not entitled to any other attendant benefits such as increments and promotion etc. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 30.03.2010 va