1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.166 OF 2003 Sol Ray Appliances Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner. Vs. Maruti baban Galande & Anr. ...Respondents. .... Mr. C.U. Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. S. Deshpande i/b. M/s. Haresh Mehta & Co. for the Petitioner. Ms.Teja Katdare for Respondent No.1. ..... CORAM :DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. April 24, 2008. P.C.: The First Respondent was working as an Assembler in connection with heater plate assembly work in the establishment of the Petitioner. A chargesheet was issued to the First Respondent on 10th December 1990 to the effect that he was guilty of willful slowing down of work and not achieving the required production norms. After a disciplinary enquiry was held, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion in his report dated 27th April 1991 that the First Respondent was guilty of the misconduct alleged. The First 2 Respondent was dismissed from service on 8th May 1991. On a reference to adjudication, the Labour Court delivered its Part-I Award on 12th February 1997 and came to the conclusion that the enquiry was fair and proper. Thereafter, evidence was led before the Labour Court. By an award dated 16th October 2000, the Labour Court held that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not perverse. Yet for the purposes of evaluating whether the punishment was disproportionate, the Labour Court once again reappreciated the evidence and awarded reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. The management challenged the award of the Labour Court in proceedings before this Court. By a judgment and order dated 10th June 2002, delivered by the Hon'ble Mr.Justice D.K. Deshmukh, this Court held that having once come to the conclusion that the findings recorded by Enquiry Officer on the charges levelled against the worker are proper, it was not open to the Labour Court to reopen the enquiry once again, consider the record and hold that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were not proper and that the punishment awarded was not lawful. The proceedings were 3 thereafter, remanded to the Labour Court. The judgment of this Court, however, clarified that the finding of the Labour Court to the effect that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were proper, was confirmed. The reference was remitted back to the Labour Court for fresh consideration only on whether the punishment was proper and lawful. The Learned Single Judge held thus: “The finding recorded by the Labour Court on issue No.1 holding that the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer is proper, is confirmed. The finding recorded by the Labour Court on second issue whether the punishment awarded to the workmen is proper and legal is set aside. The reference is remitted back to the Labour Court for fresh consideration and decision on the second issue framed by the Labour Court and consequential order that requires to be made.” Upon remand, the Labour Court passed a fresh award dated 17th August 2002 and allowed the reference by directing the employer to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and full back wages. The grievance of the Petitioner is that despite the specific directions contained in the order of this Court, dated 10th June 2002, 4 confirming the correctness of the order of the Labour Court, holding that the finding of misconduct was proper, the Labour Court reopened the entire enquiry. The submission is that it was only on the question of punishment that the reference was remitted back to the Labour Court by the order of this Court dated 10th June 2002. The submission which has been urged on behalf of the Petitioner will have to be accepted. The order of this Court dated 10th June 2002 shows that: (i) The finding of misconduct that was arrived at in the disciplinary enquiry and as found by the Labour Court to be proper, was affirmed; (ii) The question of punishment was remitted back for a decision by the Labour Court. Despite the clear directions contained in the order of this Court, the Labour Court once again reopened the question as to whether the workman was guilty of misconduct and has come to the following conclusion: “Therefore, considering the submissions of both sides and the evidence on recored before me, I have come to the conclusion that the misconduct alleged against the second party is not proved.” Clearly, it was not open to the Labour Court to decide upon the question of misconduct once again which has attained finality 5 upon the order of this Court dated 10th June 2002. Despite this, Labour Court proceeded to frame Issue No.1 and held that the misconduct was not proved. This is directly contrary to the terms of the order of remand. For all these reasons, the petition will have to be allowed. The proceedings will have to be remanded back to the Labour Court. It is, however, clarified that upon remand, the Labour Court shall now only deal with the question as to the legality of the punishment imposed by the employer, in terms of the order dated 10th June 2002. It is clarified that the finding of misconduct stands concluded in terms of the order passed by this Court. The impugned award dated 17th August 2002 is in these circumstances quashed and set aside. Reference (ID) 69 of 1992 shall stand remitted back to the Labour Court for determining the legality of the punishment that has been imposed by the employer on the Respondent workman. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. .....