- (1.) This appeal is against the judgment and order of the learned Trial Judge dated 2nd May, 2008, whereby and whereunder the award of the learned Labour Court directing reinstatement of the workman concerned, viz. the respondent No. 3, has been upheld. However, another portion of the award for payment of 50% of back wages has not been accepted and for which the case been remanded to the learned Labour Court to decide only on the issue of payment of 50% back wages.
(2.) The fact of the case for which this dispute cropped up is stated hereunder: The respondent No. 3 was an employee at the time of issuance of the chargesheet and the allegations against him was that since he has been convicted by competent Court for fraudulent drawal of amount from the ESI Corporation, a disciplinary proceedings was to be initiated against him. It is rather better to set out the text of the chargesheet: "You had fraudulently and dishonesty drawn an amount of Rs. 75/- (Rupees seventy-five only) as sickness benefit by misrepresentation -which is a cognizable offence under law. You have been convicted by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate of Sealdah Court and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.60/- i.e. to suffer S.I. for 6 days and ordered to refund the amount of Rs. 75/- fraudulently drawn by you as sickness benefit to the ESI Corpn., within a month from the date of order i.e. 16.12.85. Thus you have been convicted by the Court of Law for your such criminal offence. Your behaviour is considered highly subversive of the factory discipline. The offences alleged to have been committed by you are serious and grave. You are hereby asked to show cause within two days of the receipt of this chargesheet why appropriate disciplinary action should not be taken against you. Should you fail to submit your written explanation within the above specified period, it shall be presumed that you have no explanation to offer and the Management shall proceed in the matter as may deem fit and proper."
(3.) Thus, it is clear that the appellants intended to initiate disciplinary proceedings on receipt of the written explanation, pursuant to the said charge- sheet. A reply was given by the respondent No. 3 and the text thereof is set out hereunder: "In response to your letter dated 20.1.86, which has been received in late, I beg to submit that for the discharge of my honest duty and maintenance of strict discipline in the factor I have become an eye-sore of you all and since last few months I am being terrorised by you for no fault of mine. To seek justice whenever I approached you I have been made victim of false allegation and I am promptly defending myself which you know well. The chargesheet which has issued against me does not deserve any reply since the allegation does not fall within the category of moral turpitude which requires explanation. In the circumstances I pray Your Honour to be kind enough to have pity on a poor, honest and disciplined employee and withdraw the charge-sheet issued against me for the ends of justice. And your petitioner shall every pray.";