- (1.) This intra court appeal has been filed by the management against the order dated 27.06.2003 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2971 of 2003 dismissing the writ petition filed by it affirming the judgment of Labour Court reinstating the workman - Respondent No. 2 with 50% of back wages.
(2.) A charge-sheet dated 17.04.1992 was served on the workman which reads as follows: You are hereby informed that you have rendered yourself liable for disciplinary action for having committed following acts of misconduct. 37 (1) wilful or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause. (2) Neglect of duty. Brief description of the incidence corresponding to the acts of misconduct as stated above is as follows: You have been absenting continuously from duty from 10.03.1992 without any information, leave or permission. You have also been found in the habit of frequently absenting from your duty without permission, information or sanction of leave. In the past also you have been cautioned verbally and in writing for irregular attendance and/or wilful action, but there has been no improvement for your behaviour.
(3.) Workman submitted his reply. It was not found satisfactory. An inquiry committee was constituted to inquire into the allegation of habitual unauthorized absence of the workman. The workman participated. He was found guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority, after considering the entire matter, terminated the services of workman vide letter No. 31.10.1992. An industrial dispute was raised. The following reference was made: Whether the termination of services of Sri Bhubneshwar Manjhi Khalasi, Staff No. 488868, HRCF M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City is proper? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to? It was registered as Reference Case No. 18 of 1996. The Labour Court by its Award dated 20.09.2002 held that the termination was not proper and the workman is entitled to reinstatement with 50% of back wages and other consequential benefits. The Labour Court inter-alia observed as follows - in the charge-sheet, the specific instances such as the date, months or years on which the workman was absenting in the past was not mentioned and it only mentioned the absence from 10.03.1992; that even if the workman admitted that he did not give any prior information for his absence, the onus of proving the charge was on the management; that for the past act of absence, the workman was already punished and so the same cannot be considered particularly, when the workman has not been charged specifically for those absences.;