WP(C) 3579/2003 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned Sr. Counsel, assisted by Mr. A. Jahid, learned cou nsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned State Counsel for the respondent No. 3. None appears for the respondents No. 1 and 2. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 26.11.2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dibrugarh in Reference Case No. 16/1996 by whic h the following issues have been answered in favour of the respondent No. 1 and against the Management/writ petitioner. a) Whether the management of the Rajmai Tea Estate are justified in dismissing Servashree Jagadish Sonar, Sankar Bhuiyam, Durga Prasad Proja, Biswanath Keot, D hiren Tamaria, Gangaram Orang and Smt. Alas Proja, Smt. Birsamoni Tamaria and Sm t. Kesebati Tamarial from services with effect from 2.8.94. b) If not, whether the workmen are entitled to re-instatement with full back wag es or any other relief in lieu thereof? In respect of the incident in question, which occurred on 3.8.1994, an enquiry w as conducted and on the basis of the report furnished by the Inquiry Officer, th e workmen in question were terminated from their services. Being aggrieved, a di spute was raised, in reference to which the aforementioned issues were referred for adjudication to the Labour Court at Dibrugarh. The incident was the alleged creation of law and order situation on 3.8.1994 in the morning working hours of the garden. According to the Management, some of th e workmen including the terminated workmen involved in this proceeding formed an unlawful assembly near the main garden office and demanded immediate issue of r ation. Although, it was explained by the Management that the ration is issued on ly after the working hours and that the workers should go back to work, but they demanded the ration and assaulted the security personnel at the office gate and thereafter forcibly intruded into the office compound. Thereafter, the concerne d workmen along with others, stormed into the garden office and without any reas on or provocation assaulted the acting Manager, Factory Assistant Manager, Head Clerk and other staff members present in the office. It was alleged that the con cerned workmen did not even spare the garden workers who were present at the sid e. As a result of such assault, the Factory Assistant Manager received grievous injuryies It was further alleged that not being satisfied with such violence, the concerne d workman incited others to violence against the management and also threatened staff and even prevented the medical aid to the injured persons. It will be pertinent to mention here that after the aforesaid incident, lock out was declared, pursuant to which a conciliation proceeding was initiated, minute s of which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-A. The relevant por tion of the said minutes is quoted below: After threadbare discussion where the Asst. Labour Commissioner, Jorhat was als o present, the parties came to an agreement on the following terms: (1) The workers of Rajmai T.E. jointly and severally condemned the violence perpetrated on the managerial staff and others on 3.8.94 and expressed deep regr et over the incident. (2) The workers also jointly and severely gave categorical assurance that th ere would not be recurrence of similar acts of violence, insubordination and ind iscipline on the estate in future. All grievances will be resolved through the e xisting grievance procedure. A letter signed by a large section of workers addressed to the Union was handed over to the management. The workers further agreed to give individual undertakin g of good conduct before joining work when the garden open. (3) It was further agreed that the management would be free to take discipli nary action against all those who are proved guilty in course of the domestic en quiry to be conducted by the management and nether the workers nor the Union wou ld interfere in course of the proceedings of the domestic enquiry. (4) Any dispute regarding payment of wages and ration etc. for the period of lock-out may be discussed at a later date. (5) The points raised by the management relating to certain inherent problem on the estate will be discussed separately at the bilateral level once normalcy is restored in the estate. (6) The workers further agreed to help the management in restoring peace and discipline on the estate by supporting action against anti-social elements. (7) In view of the assurance given by the workers, the management agreed to lift the lock-out w.e.f. 13th August/94 but the actual work on the estate will s tart from 14.8.94. The pending earned wage and ration for the period prior to declaration of lock-o ut will be paid as early as possible following the reopening of the garden. In order to ensure quality of green leaf the management would be free to skiff t he entire or any party of the garden as may be considered necessary. Union Management 1. Sd/- M.S. Khandait 1. Sd/- P. Rajkhowa Gen. Secy. A.C.M.S. Acting Manager 12.8.94 Rajmai T.E. 12.8.92 After the aforesaid development, the Management decided to hold a domestic enqui ry in respect of the aforesaid incident. The Inquiry Officer appointed for the p urpose conducted the enquiry, during which, both side examined their witnesses. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Inquiry Officer held the workmen in question guilty of the charges leveled against them, on the basis of which the m anagement decided to discharge the said workmen from service. It was pursuant th ereto, the aforesaid dispute was raised in reference to which the above issues w ere referred to the learned Labour Court, Dibrugarh. The learned Presiding Offic er having answered the issues against the management and in favour of the workme n with the direction to reinstate them to their services, the management has fil ed the instant writ petition. Mr. Sarma, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner submits that on the face of it , the findings and conclusion recorded by the learned Presiding Officer are perv erse and contrary to the evidence on record. He submits that the act of violence on the part of the workmen in question being not in dispute as will be evident from the aforementioned conciliation proceeding itself, learned Labour Court cou ld not have held that no such incident in fact had taken place. Inspite of service of notice on the respondent No. 1, there is no response from their side to this proceeding. I have considered the materials on record includi ng the LCR in question, to which my findings and conclusions are as follows: On perusal of the impugned award, what has transpired is that the learned Labour Court has rejected the domestic enquiry only on the ground of alleged non-furni shing of list of witnesses to the workmen along with the charges. On perusal of the LCR, I do not find anything to suggest that because of non-furnishing of lis t of witnesses along with the charges, any prejudice was caused to the workmen. They fully participated in the proceeding without raising any grievance on that count. In the impugned award, learned Labour Court without discussing the said a spect of the matter has discarded the enquiry only on the ground that the Inquir y Officer, in his deposition did not state anything as to whether the list of ma nagement witnesses had been furnished or not. Thus, it is by implication, the le arned Labour Court came to the conclusion that list of witnesses was not furnish ed to the delinquents. When the delinquent themselves did not raise any objectio n regarding non-furnishing of list of witnesses and/or no prejudice was projecte d, in my considered opinion, learned Labour Court adopting a mechanical approach , could not have held that the alleged non-furnishing of witnesses had vitiated the enquiry proceeding. Leaving aside the domestic enquiry proceeding, the evidences were led in the pro ceeding before the learned Labour Court. On perusal of the LCR, what is seen is that the management witnesses unequivocally deposed about the assault and the ac t of violence committed by the delinquent. The Inquiry Officer also, in his depo sition categorically stated about the proceeding in the enquiry and the document s exhibited during the enquiry. From his deposition, it is abundantly clear that all reasonable opportunities were afforded to the workmen and there was no proc edural irregularity in conducting the enquiry. In such a situation, learned Labo ur Court could not have brushed aside the enquiry proceeding solely on the presu mption that the list of witnesses was not furnished to the delinquent. Learned Labour Court, upon discussion of evidence on record has held that the te stimony of management witnesses was not fully corroborated by other witnesses. I t is not understood as to what is sought to be conveyed by expressing the word not fully corroborated . On perusal of the depositions made by the witnesses, so me of whom were not even cross examined by the workmen, what is found is that al l the witnesses in fact deposed about the violent act and the act of assault on the part of the delinquents. In such a situation, the learned Labour Court could not come to the finding that the management failed to prove that the delinquent took active part in the act of violence. To that extent the findings recorded b y the learned Labour Court is perverse and not based on evidence on record. Above being the position, I have no hesitation to set aside and quash the impugn ed judgment and award dated 26.11.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dibrugarh in Reference Case No. 16/1996. Writ petition is allowed. There shall not order as to costs.