Biecco Lawrie Ltd. & Anr vs State Of West Bengal & Anr

3. The respondent was appointed as general mazdoor in the Switch Gear works of the appellants and his duty, inter alia, was to bring materials from the shop rack to the working benches and afterwards to take them to their respective racks. On 4th of August 1984, a charge sheet was issued against the respondent on charges of major misconduct, namely, instigation, insubordination and using of abusive and filthy languages against his superiors and dilatory tactics, which are major misdemeanor in terms of Section "L" Appendix "D" of the certified standing orders of the appellant- Company, which are reproduced below:

4. By the charge sheet, the respondent was called upon to submit his explanation and he was suspended from service with payment of subsistence allowance pending inquiry. The respondent filed his written explanation on 6th of August, 1984 to the charge sheet which being found unsatisfactory, an inquiry committee was constituted with Mr. P.K.Mukherjee (the company lawyer) as the Inquiry Officer who submitted his report on 29th of August, 1985 following domestic inquiry and held that the respondent was guilty of major misconduct. Accordingly, relying upon the inquiry report, the respondent was dismissed from service. The respondent through a letter dated 22nd of November, 1985 admitted all the charges and sought condonation and mercy attributing his acts to his mental illness which was not considered by the appellants on account that the respondent was on earlier occasion also charged with similar grounds and was given a chance to amend his conduct. It was alleged by the appellants that the respondent had developed a habit of misconducting himself in an undesirable manner despite opportunities being given to rectify his conduct.

5. Subsequent to this, the dispute was referred under Section 7A of the Industrial Disputes Act on 2nd of April, 1987 by the Labour Department, Government of West Bengal to the Vth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal for adjudication. Both the parties filed their written statements presenting their cases before the Tribunal and on 9th of October, 1990 the Tribunal held that the inquiry conducted by Mr. P. K. Mukheree, the Inquiry Officer, was in violation of the principles of natural justice and accordingly the matter was heard afresh on merits. The witnesses of the appellants were examined and cross examined. The respondent was also examined and cross examined. In course of examination of the witnesses of the appellants, a witness specifically mentioned the abusive and slang language used by the respondent which was recorded in vernacular. These witnesses were also examined by the respondent. The Vth Industrial Tribunal, on consideration of the Inquiry Report and evidence on record, affirmed the order of dismissal passed against the respondent and gave a reasoned order whereby it specifically found the charges leveled against the respondent deemed to have been proved and while doing so had also taken into consideration the prior conduct of the respondent. The respondent challenged the order 4 of the Tribunal before the High Court by filing a writ petition and by an order dated 12th of October 1999, the order of the Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration on the basis of existing evidence but only with respect to charge no. 1, viz., disobedient in not carrying out the orders of his superiors.

7. The appellants subsequently challenged the aforesaid order of the Vth Industrial Tribunal by filing a writ petition before the High Court which was dismissed on 4th of October, 2004 without assigning any reasons of its own. It passed the order on the basis of the findings of the Tribunal and held that the court in exercise of its jurisdiction was not authorised to re-appreciate the findings of the Tribunal. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants preferred an appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court which also dismissed the same on 30th of September, 2005 affirming the order of the learned Single Judge on a finding that the charge sheet did not contain the specific materials in detail. Feeling aggrieved by the Order of the High Court, the appellants have filed these special leave petitions which, on grant of leave, were heard in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties.

26. In view of our discussions made herein above, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court as well as of the learned Single Judge are liable to be set aside and the order of dismissal passed against the respondent herein must be restored. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.