B.P. Banerjee, J. - (1.) This is an appeal against the judgement dated 11 December, 1989, passed by the learned Trail Judge in Civil Rule No. 4911(W) of 1978, dismissing the writ application filed by the appellant against the Award dated 16 March, 1978, passed by the Judge, Ninth Industrial Tribunal, in industrial dispute case No. X -36 of 1975. The respondent No. 4, Shri Hari Bhagat, was an employee of the appellant Company in Press Shop. It was alleged that in or about March 1974, the workmen of the Press Shop of the Company, in violation of the terms of the tripartite settlement, resorted to slowing down of production of the Press Shop. Circulars and/or notices and caution letters were issued to - the workmen between March 25, 1974, and 3rd April, 1974. The said notices did not produce the desired effect of the workmen and thereafter the appellant issued Charge Sheets to the workmen who were alleged to have indulged in such go slow practice and other misconducts. It was further alleged that the workman of the factory, including the press Shop, resorted to tool down strike on 3rd April, 1974, attended with other - acts of misconduct.
(2.) It is stated that the respondent No. 4 Shri Prasad Bhagat, was at all material times employed as semi -skilled workman in the Press Shop of the factory and that while so employed, he committed acts of misconduct under several heads of the certified standing orders. The acts alleged were that the said Shri Hari Prasad Bhagat deliberately slowed down the production of the Press Shop for quite some time and also instigated other workman of his line to do so and due to such acts, the Company's production had seriously affected:
(3.) The misconducts stated in the charge sheet, were wilful insubordination, disobedience of lawful and reasonable order of superiors; wilful slowing down in the performance of work; riotous disorderly, misorderly indecent behaviour threatening , intimidating, coercing other employees; gross neglect of work, etc. The charges were duly enquired into by the Enquiry Officer and on conclusion the Enquiry Officer who held she enquiry, submitted a report to the Company on 15 October, 1974 containing his findings. In the said report, the respondent No. 4 was found guilty of the charges contained in the Charge Sheet. The said enquiry report was considered by the management and order of dismissal from service was issued upon the Respondent No.4.;