Pratap Kr. Ray, J. - (1.) In this writ application, petitioner M/s. Ganesh Narayan Brijlal Ltd., a company engaged in the business of Financing, Leasing and Real Estate has challenged the award dated 18th August, 1998 passed by the First Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal as well as the order dated 12th October, 1998, publishing the said award by Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal. Respective parties have filed the opposition and reply with reference to the writ application. The fact leading to the writ application in short as follows :
(2.) Workman Chaitan Mahanty was served with a charge-sheet dated 24th September, 1983 on the allegation that without permission he had taken out two letters dated 31st January, 1981 and 31st March, 1981 from the Office File of M/s. Starling Investors as were addressed to the United Commercial Bank and he handed over the said two letters to Rohit Xerox Services for making out Xerox copies of those two letters whose office was situated at the fourth floor of Todi Mansion. It was further alleged that said two documents were relevant documents as would have decided the fate of Court proceeding being a confidential document of a company. M/s. Starling Investor is a Sister Concern of petitioner No. 1 of this writ application. The workman was the Office Peon and had the access to various files and documents. On this allegation charge-sheet dated 24th September, 1983 was issued, charging him (a) tampering with office records with a motive to cause loss and injury to the company, (b) acting to the prejudice of the companies interest. (c) dishonesty in connection with company's business. (d) acts subversive of discipline. The workman submitted explanation of the charge-sheet, which was found unsatisfactory, a departmental enquiry was initiated. In the Departmental Enquiry, company placed three witnesses after supply of the relevant documents to the delinquent workman. Enquiry proceeding was initiated following the rules and regulations of the standing order and principle of natural justice. The company witness, Gopal Bahadur was a Peon under M/s. Rohit Xerox Services deposed that workman Sri Chaitan Mahanty had handed over those two letters to make the Xerox copy. After such Xerox, when he went to hand over it at the Office of the petitioner No. 1, since Chaitan Mahanty was not available, original documents and Xerox copies were handed over to Pranjit Majumdar who wanted to know how those two documents were taken out from file of the company and handed over for making Xerox and in answer the said witness categorically deposed that Chaitan Mahanty, workman had given those papers for making Xerox. There was no cross-examination of such deposition that the documents were taken out from the file by the workman concerned. However, on completion of the departmental enquiry, the order of dismissal was passed. Industrial Dispute was referred to and the same came up for adjudication before the Tribunal. Tribunal initially in a preliminary enquiry held that the departmental enquiry was vitiated for violation of the principle of natural justice and same was not fair and passed an order on 25th September, 1985. This order was challenged in writ petition being C.O. No. 22303 (W) of 1995 but same was dismissed by the order dated 15th January, 1996 passed by Ashok Kr. Chakroborty, J. challenging such, the company preferred appeal being FMAT No. 713 of 1996 and by the judgment dated 5th August, 1996, the appeal was allowed by the said Division Bench holding inter alia, that departmental proceeding was completed following the principle of natural justice, fair play and there was no violation of such. Matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for decision on merit. The Tribunal decided the matter on merit in exercising his power under Section 11A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and came to a finding that there was no sufficient materials to prove the charge and accordingly held that finding of the Enquiring Officer of the domestic enquiry was baseless, illegal and void. The Tribunal passed order of reinstatement and back wages, impugned in the writ application.
(3.) It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the Tribunal had travelled beyond its jurisdiction by scanning the evidence and materials on record to reach a conclusion that there was no sufficient evidence to prove the charge by considering his jurisdiction as appellate jurisdiction. It is further submitted that once the departmental enquiry has been held and declared by the Division Bench of this High Court as fair and there was no violation of principle of natural justice, there was a little scope before the Tribunal to embark upon the evidence on record for holding that the charge was not strictly proved. It is submitted that Tribunal erred to decide the issue by considering the same in the angle of Criminal Jurisprudence without considering the settled legal position that in a domestic enquiry the strict prove as per Evidence Act, which is required in a Criminal proceeding is not the sine qua non but evidence as would satisfy an ordinary mind about misconduct would be sufficient to impose punishment.;