P.B. Mukharji, J. - (1.) This Rule was taken out by the petitioner workman directed against the Award of the fifth Industrial Tribunal against him on his complaint under Section 33(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Award is dated the 13th May, 1963 published in the Calcutta Gazette of the 20th June, 1968.
(2.) The findings of the Tribunal may be summarised briefly. The Tribunal holds that there has been contravention of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal also holds in favour of the petitioner that no fair and proper enquiry was held in connection with the second charge sheet. These are points held in favour of the petitioner. But the points held against the petitioner by the Tribunal are serious and on the question of merits.
(3.) The Tribunal held as a fact that the petitioner was grossly negligent in passing the bill for Rs. 7,457.12 nP. and has caused damage to the company. In fact, the Tribunal says, "I am afraid the absence of verification was due to gross negligence, if not mala fide and deliberate action." The Tribunal also holds on the merits that the offence is very serious and that dismissal was not too severe a punishment for such an offence. The Tribunal's finding is expressed in the following terms: "I find that Shri Paul is really guilty of the charge levelled against him by the Company and he deserved the punishment of dismissal." The other findings of the Tribunal are that there was breach of the proviso of Section 33(2)(b) inasmuch as one month's wage provided therein was not actually paid. Hence the Tribunal's order was in these terms: "So there is no escape from the conclusion that the order of dismissal passed by the management was to that extent illegal or inoperative. But I have already shown that the Company had sufficient reason for taking disciplinary action against Shri Paul because he was guilty of a major misdemeanour. So in view of these circumstances I think Shri Paul is not entitled to an order of reinstatement in spite of the fact that there was contravention of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act. But nevertheless I think Shri Paul should not be deprived of his substantive right created by Section 33 of the Act. Accordingly I direct that the order of dismissal passed by the Management should stand but the Company must pay three months' wages as compensation to Shri Paul " ;