- (1.) THE instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against order No. 87 dated February 16, 2007 passed by the learned second Labour Court, West Bengal in case No. 66 of 1999. The facts of the case may briefly be stated as follows:
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 3, namely, Sri Bhudhar chandra Paul (Man No. 101513) was working as a Clerk in the Salary and Wages Section of the Company, being M/s. Garden Reach Ship Builders and Engineers Ltd. On the basis of vigilance report dated March 22, 1997, he was charged on March 28, 1997 for his alleged involvement in withdrawal of an amount of Rs. 1,491/- by forging signature and thumb impression. He allegedly involved one Sri Sisir Kumar Palodhy and obtained his thumb impression on an already existing thumb impression against T. No. 6079 in the unpaid wage register against the name of Sri Gour chandra Naskar, T. No. 4477. Sri Palodhy being advised by one Sri Rana Roy, clerk, brought this to the notice of the vigilance department. When the incident came to light, such Bhudhar chandra Paul confessed before Sri Naskar that he had withdrawn his unpaid wages. Since the matter came to the notice of the vigilance department, an investigation was carried out. On the basis of the vigilance report, a charge-sheet containing the charges was served upon Sri Paul. After considering the reply received from Sri Paul, the authority concerned decided to hold domestic enquiry. The enquiry officer concluded his report in respect of the said enquiry with the following observation: "in view of the foregoing, I hold Sri bhudhar Ch. Paul, Man No. 101513 of salary and Wages Section guilty of the charges levelled against him vide charge-sheet No. 14/97 dated March 28, 1997 and the charges of. . . . . . fraud or dishonesty in connection with the company's business or property' under clause 5, 'commission of any act subversive of good behaviour or of the discipline of the company under Clause 11' and 'interfering with the record. . . . . wilful falsification, defacement. . . . . of any records of the company' under Clause 21 of the list of major Misdemeanours of the Certified standing Orders of the Company applicable to him, are proved and established beyond any reasonable doubt. . . . "
(3.) ON July 3, 1998, the enquiry officer submitted his report holding the respondent No. 3 guilty of all the charges. Such report of the enquiry officer was furnished to the respondent no. 3. On July 28, 1998, he submitted his representation against the report of the enquiry officer. By letter dated September 1/2, 1998, the respondent No. 3 was dismissed from the service of the Company. On December 10, 1998, he raised an industrial dispute challenging the order of dismissal and ultimately filed an application under Section 10 (lb) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The management filed a written statement. On september 21, 1999, an application for interim relief was filed. Objection was raised thereto on december 10, 1999. By an order No. 33 dated february 21, 2003, the respondent Labour court rejected such application. Such order, however, was quashed by the High Court in a writ Petition No. W. P. No. 896/2003. The matter was remanded. On February 16, 2007, the respondent Labour Court by an order No. 87 allowed the prayer for interim relief.;