- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 is a pro-forma party.
(3.) The short question is when by an earlier order of the High Court a view was taken by the Division Bench after hearing the parties that the punishment of removal from service was too harsh so far as the appellant is concerned and the matter was remanded to the Labour Court for re-deciding the question of appropriate punishment short of removal under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also to consider the question of back wages and when the Labour Court accordingly took the view that punishment of withholding of one increment on grant of full back wages would suffice, whether in a further petition against that order the learned single Judge could have passed an order suggesting punishment of removal and which is confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The impugned order states that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the Labour Court on three points as detailed below : (i) The Labour Court would decide the question of punishment and also the question of discipline in the office by taking fresh evidence of gainful employment of workman during the period of termination of his service. (ii) Secondly, the question of re-employment of the workman is linked with discipline and loss of confidence. (iii) Thirdly, whether the order of reinstatement can be substituted by payment of lump sum damages.;