- (1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the Single Bench dated 29.11.2006 whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioner (appellant herein) challenging the award of the labour court dated 24.08.2001 directing reinstatement of respondents No. 2 & 3, was dismissed.
(2.) The respondent No. 2 namely, Badri Narain Meena and respondent No. 3 namely, Surendra Singh Shekhawat were appointed as Helper and Operator respectively with the appellant in 1978. They were charge-sheeted on 25.10.1991 for several acts of misconduct, which they had committed on 14th, 15th, 16th & 24th October, 1991. A domestic enquiry was held wherein vide report dated 13.12.1991, their misconduct was proved. They were then dismissed from service vide order dated 30.12.1991. The matter was sent for conciliation and upon failure of conciliation, failure report was filed on 05.03.1992. The matter was referred to the labour court on 20.01.1994 wherein vide order dated 05.07.2000, it was held that the enquiry was conducted fairly and the workmen were given full opportunity of hearing. The labour court vide award dated 24.08.2001 set aside the order of punishment and directed reinstatement of the respondent No. 2 & 3. The appellant challenged the award of the labour court by preferring S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5318/2001, which was dismissed by the Single Bench vide the order dated 29.11.2006 which is impugned in the instant appeal.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the charges of misconduct on the part of the respondents No. 2 & 3 were rather grave and they had been thoroughly proved in the enquiry which was conducted in the matter. He has further submitted that the labour court as well as the learned Single Bench have erred in law in holding that the punishment of dismissal from service was not warranted on the ground of parity with another employee namely, Ram Karan Chaudhary, who had been let off with reduction of one month's salary. The misconduct on the part of the respondents No. 2 & 3 was far serious and grave as compared to the misconduct committed by Ram Karan Chaudhary. He has also submitted that in case the misconduct is proved, there was no question of any victimization of the respondents and the punishment of dismissal from service can also not be held to be disproportionate to the misconduct. He has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of The workmen of Firestore Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. The Management & Others, 1973 1 SCC 813, Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. vs. N.K. Singh, 2006 12 SCC 554, M/s. Obettee Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mohd. Shafiq Khan, 2005 AIR(SC) 3510, Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. vs. Uttam Manohar Nakate, 2005 2 SCC 489, Hombe Gowda Educational Trust and Anr. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2006 1 SCC 430, Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Co-operative Wholesale Stores Limited) & Ors. vs. The Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha & Ors., 2000 7 SCC 517, and Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. N.B. Narawade etc., 2005 3 SCC 134.;