- (1.) .At the instance of the workman, Shri Tushar Kanti Ray, the present application has been filed, challenging two orders dated September 20, 1993 and June 9, 1994 passed in Case No. 18/85/33(2)(b) by the learned II Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, being the respondent No. 1, in favour of the second respondent, the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd., being the predecessor in interest of the CESC Ltd. By the first order dated September 20, 1993 the first respondent had approved the order of dismissal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), made by the respondent company. The second mentioned order was passed on an application for review of the first mentioned order, whereby and whereunder the application for review was rejected.
(2.) . The short facts giving rise to the present writ petition are stated hereunder: The writ petitioner being a workman was served with a show cause notice dated June 3, 1985, alleging misconduct on his part committed by demanding a sum of Rs.100/- from a consumer of the said Company to settle up a matter with the authorities. It is alleged in the said show cause notice that on May 25, 1985 the petitioner called on one Shri Gopal Chandra Nath at Kasthadanga Road, Burabazar, Sarsuna, L.P. No. 211/2 Cal. 61 on an inspection job issued to him by the Special Compliant Enquiry Cell. It is further alleged that on his inability to pay the aforesaid sum at the spot he had asked him to visit him with the money on May 27, 1985 at his office. In the said show cause notice punishment inflicted upon him in connection with his past misconduct was also referred and was made as one of the incidents of misconduct. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice and he had set up a plea of alibi and explained what incident had happened while conducting Inspection. From the tenor of his reply it appears that the allegations of demand of Rs. 100/- or for that matter any other amount was denied by necessary implication. He stated amongst others that to his utter surprise he received the show cause notice having not a bit of involvement in the allegations levelled against him. He demanded a fair investigation to unearth the truth, which would prove his innocence.
(3.) . Not being satisfied with the explanation the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated June 15, 1985 and the Company decided to hold enquiry. It is on record, no reply to the said charge-sheet was asked to be given nor the petitioner demanded to allow him to file formal reply to the said charge-sheet. Thereafter, as per provision of Certified Standing Order, the Enquiry committee was constituted consisting of 4 members, two of them were nominated from the side of the employer and the remaining two were nominated from the side of the workmen. Admittedly, the petitioner had participated in this Enquiry proceeding and witnesses were produced on behalf of the Company, the Enquiry proceedings were held on June 26, 1985 and July 4, 1985 respectively. On July 4, 1985 one of the nominees of the company was absent, however, the Enquiry was concluded with the remaining three members.;