- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The order under challenge was passed on a writ petition filed by the respondent workman. The writ petition was filed in the following circumstances: the workman was dismissed from the service of the appellant. The validity of the dismissal was in issue before the Labour court. The Labour court initially decided in favour of the workman. The order of the labour court was challenged in a writ petition (WP No. 7360 of 1987) before the high court. The High court then remitted the matter to the Labour court directing it to frame an issue as to whether the domestic enquiry against the workman had been properly conducted and, if the finding was against the employer Corporation, then the Corporation was at liberty to adduce evidence, if it so chose, whereafter an award could be made. Pending the disposal of the writ petition, however, the Corporation was directed to implement the award and the reinstatement of the workman was recorded.
(3.) On remand, the Labour court held that the Corporation was justified in removing the workman from service for proved misconduct under the various charges levelled against him and proved by the Corporation. This order of the Labour court was the subject-matter of the challenge in the writ petition (No. 15888 of 1990) upon which the order under challenge was passed. The high court was of the opinion that no interference with the award under challenge before it was called for because it gave cogent and convincing reasons. However, the High court was of the opinion that the punishment that was imposed upon the workman was disproportionate to the misconduct. It noted also that the workman had been taken back on duty and was continuing in service by reason of interim orders of the court. It. therefore, modified the award under challenge as regards the punishment imposed as follows: "the petitioner shall be reinstated into service with continuity of service and full back wages. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. ";