GOVEVD MATHUR, J. - (1.) These two petitions for writ are preferred to question validity, propriety and correctness of the award dated December 14, 1994 passed by Labour Court, Udaipur answering the reference made to it by the appropriate government in following terms: "Whether the action of the Management, Rajpura Dariba Mines, Hindustan Zinc Ltd., in terminating the services of Shri Pradeep Siroya son of Shri Sardar Singh, Senior Assistant, Employee No. 32168 w.e.f. January 19, 1991 is justified and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?
(2.) Before passing the award impugned the Labour Court vide order dated December 5, 1994 held the domestic inquiry fair and in accordance with law. The Labour Court also held that Shri Pradeep Siroya (hereinafter referred to as "the workman") was rightly found guilty for the misconduct but held the penalty of discharge from service disproportionate to the delinquency proved. Accordingly, while exercising powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1947") the punishment of discharge was substituted by penalty of withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. The workman was also declared entitled for 50% of the back wages and full wages for the period he remained under suspension. Challenge is given to the award by the employer as well as by the workman. By the workman challenge is also given to the order dated December 5, 1994 holding the domestic inquiry fair.
(3.) The factual matrix giving rise to the industrial dispute as above is that the Manager (Goods), Rajpura Dariba Mines, Hindustan Zinc Ltd. issued and served a memorandum dated April 16, 1990 seeking explanation from the workman for certain allegations of misconduct relating to his misbehaviour with higher officials. It appears that the workman under his letter dated April 22, 1990 accepted the wrong done by him, therefore, the Manager (Goods) dropped the proposed disciplinary action with warning to the workman. Some uncalled for incidents again took place on July 7, 1990 and July 22, 1990 and for that the disciplinary authority served a charge sheet dated July 23, 1990. The charge sheet was containing definite charges with statement of facts on which charges were founded. The charges of misconduct alleged, and the statement of allegation under the charge sheet dated July 23, 1990 reads as follows: "a) Use of abusive language for superior, employees, b) Riotous and disorderly behaviour with your colleagues in the office during office hours and thereby committing acts subversive of discipline. c) Assaulting and threatening superior employees of the Company within the mine premises. d) Wilful violation of Standing Orders. The above charges are based on the following allegations: It has been reported in writing by your colleagues that you are in habit of exhibiting disorderly behaviour and using abusive language in the office during the office hours for superiors. You are also in habit of talking about casteism and other unwanted affairs in the office. Whenever your colleagues advise you to stop such action you become angry and start threatening them. On July 7, 1990 you were on duty. At about 3.30 p.m. you were using abusive language for G.M. While doing so your other colleagues like S/Shri Pradeep Kumar Yagnik, (Sr.Assistant, E. No. 32289,) Shyam Sunder Paliwal (Sr.Assistant. E. No. 32111) & Dinesh Chandra Daglia (Sr.Assistant, E. No. 32315) advised you to stop such use of abusive language for superiors. Instead of taking advise of your colleagues in good spirit and used the following language before them. "Vernacular matter omitted" Thereafter, you took a paper weight in your one hand and single punch in the other hand and rushed to beat them. Thereafter, these employees submitted a written complaint against you for necessary action. Since, these allegations were of serious nature, the undersigned decided to meet with you and enquire about the incident. With this and in view, the undersigned visited personally the office of Shri P.L. Gehlot, Manager (Materials) (under whom you are working) at about 4.15 PM on July 22, 1990. I called Shri R.C. Bhatnagar, Manager (Materials) and you to enquire into the incident on 7.7.1990. While enquiring into the incident you started giving irrelevant reply and not talking to the points. As a result, I asked you to go to your seat. After going to your seat, you started threatening your other colleagues who had given the written complaints dated July 9, 1990. After the order of suspension was signed by the undersigned and handed over to Shri R.C. Bhatnagar, Manager (Materials) for serving the same to you. It was reported that you refused to accept the order No. HZ L/(S&P)/Pers/90/dated July 22, 1990 when you were asked to receive it by Shri V.S. Jayavalsan. Shri Jayavalsan came to the chamber of Shri Gehlot and returned the order undelivered to Shri Gehlot in the presence of Shri Bhatnagar and the undersigned. Shri Gehlot called you in his chamber and advised you to receive the letter. You again refused to accept the letter and told that all the problems were created by Shri R.C. Bhatnagar, Manager (Materials). Thereafter, I again advised you to take the delivery of said order, but you became suddenly violent, and attacked Shri Bhatnagar with a blow. When Shri Bhatnagar tried to save himself, you hit him on shoulder and threatened him and his family members of dire consequences. Thus, you are guilty of committing the acts of misconduct as mentioned above. This amounts to acts of misconduct in accordance with Certified Standing Orders under Clause No. 18(18), (22), (28) & (36).";