DILIP KUMAR SETH, J. - (1.)The service of the workman was terminated under Clause 30 of the Standing Orders applicable to the employee. The competent authority had recorded its reasons that it had lost confidence in the workman. The fact discloses that on information the Police raided his house. By reason of having an inkling of this raid, the workman had fled from his house. While fleeing, he was intercepted and a billet allegedly manufactured by the employer company was recovered from the suitcase carried in the Rickshaw in which he was travelling. The workman had attempted to justify that the suitcase belonged to one Sri Chakraborty, a Fitter of the Company, who was accompanying him and just had gone to answer the call of nature. But the learned Tribunal did not believe the same. Evidence was adduced before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal had considered the same and had come to a finding that there was justification in the reasons given for dispensing with the enquiry and terminating the service of the workman.
(2.)Mr. Bose had pointed out that the learned single Judge had not considered the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal in the award and had overlooked the perversity in it. He had pointed out that there was no finding with regard to the fact that the enquiry was not reasonably practicable or would be counter-productive. On the other hand, it had tried to find out the nexus between the incident and the allegations made by the employer. But the fact remains that the billet was never identified and there was no material to show that the recovered goods belonged to the employer. He also pointed out that the Police had initiated an enquiry in which a final report was submitted. In the final report, it was pointed out that no nexus could be established with regard to the billet and the worker. Mr. Bose wanted to make capital out of this finding and the discharge of the workman by the final report.
(3.)Mr. Arunabha Ghosh, learned counsel for the employer, points out that the absence of reasons as to the reasonable practicability or counter-productivity of the enquiry would not affect the finding of the learned Tribunal when the learned Tribunal had, independent of the finding of the employer arrived at a clear finding with regard to the allegations made by the employer as against the workman. According to him, even, if no enquiry is held by the employer, the employer is at liberty to prove the allegations before the learned Tribunal, which has since been done in the present case. The parties had led evidence on the basis whereof the learned Tribunal had come to a finding of fact. Therefore, this Court cannot interfere with the said finding of fact. He had relied upon the decision in the case of Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory Private Ltd. v. Motipur Sugar Factory Private Ltd. AIR 1965 SC 1803 : 1965-II-LLJ-162 to substantiate his above contention.
;