M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the award dated 12.7.1993 passed by Labour Court, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 4 of 1986 whereby after setting aside the order of dismissal he directed for his reinstatement with half back wages and other consequential benefits including continuity of service.
(2.) THE concerned workman was in the service of the petitioner since 1964. The workman illegally occupied the quarter allotted to another employee, namely, Shree C. Dhanwar. The petitioner Management gave a notice to the petitioner and then instituted a suit against him and obtained a decree. The decree was put on execution and on the relevant date when the ballief came to execute the decree the workman is alleged to have assaulted the officers of the company. Accordingly on 21.10.1984 the workman was served with a charge -sheet and was put under suspension. After holding an inquiry service of the petitioner -workman was terminated w.e.f. 21.10.1984. The workman through the Union raised Industrial dispute and ultimately the following dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The term of reference is as under : "Whether the termination of service of Shree R.P. Singh Ticket No. 6381/67726/2 workman of M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company limited, Jamshedpur, is proper and justified whether he is entitled to re -in -statement or any other relief." The trial Court took up the preliminary issue whether domestic inquiry conducted by Management was fair and impartial. Vide order dated 16.7.1990 the trial Court held that domestic inquiry was fair and impartial which is labour Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties have come to the conclusion that the charges of misconduct levelled against the workman was fully established the relevant portion of the award as appears in para 15 is reproduced hereinbelow : "Considering the evidence available on the record and in the facts and circumstances of this case it can be easily said that charge -sheeted workman had his hands in this incident and the occurrence of assault took place at his instance. It has been proved that concerned workman Shri R.P. Singh was in unauthorised occupation of Co.s quarter No. K/11/8 and he willfully disobeyed the level and reasonable order of his superior. It has also been established that the Town Warden Mr. A.K. Banerjee was assaulted at the instance of concerned workman. Hence charge -sheeted workman Shri R.P. Singh is held guilty of misconduct as alleged in the charge -sheet. This issue is decided accordingly." For better appreciation Paras 16 and 17 of award passed by the Labour Court are reproduced hereinbelow : - - "Issue No. (ii) Now I have to consider whether the order of punishment awarded to the concerned workman is disproportionate to the charges proved. The learned lawyer appearing for the workman has submitted that penalty to be imposed for misconduct must be commensurate with the gravity of the offence charged. He has further submitted that there was not a single adverse remarks or any stigma against this workman during his long service of over 20 years in the company. It was further argued that this workman was acquitted by the criminal Court for the allegation of assault, hence charge of assault can not be said to have been proved against him, therefore, linient view may be taken in awarding punish ment. He cited two decisions in support of his contention 1982 (45) FLR 432 (SO and 1984 SCC (L and S) 281. On the other hand learned lawyer appearing for the management has submitted that ac cording to Works Standing Order No. 25 of the Company an employee shall be liable to be dismissed if he has been guilty of misconduct. He has further submitted that in view of gravity of of fences the punishment of dismissal is proper. (17) it has been proved that the concerned workman willfully disobeyed the lawful and reasonable order of superior. It has also been proved that this workman was in unauthorized occupation of Co.s quarter. So far allegation of assault is concerned it has been held earlier that direct allegation of assault was not proved but it has been established that he had his hands in the said incident. Though these offences are also serious but it should be kept in mind that there was not a single adverse remark against this workman during his long period of service. Management has not shown that there was any blame worthy conduct of this workman during the period of 20 years of service, he rendered prior to the date of this misconduct. There is nothing on the record to show that any previous adverse remarks against this workman had been taken into consideration by the management for awarding the extreme punishment of dismissal. The punishment of dismissal in these cases is amount to death sentence for accused in criminal cases. Therefore, I arn satisfied that the order of dismissal is not justified in the facts and circumstances of this case and it is disproportionate to the charges proved."
(3.) ADMITTEDLY the workman was in unauthorised occupation of the quarter and instead of vacating the same forced the Management to take recourse of law by filing an eviction suit and obtaining a decree from a civil Court and it was only after obtaining the decree it was put in execution and then the workman was removed. It is true that the workman was acquitted by the criminal Court for the allegation of assault but the fact remains that the officer of the Management was abused at the instance of the workman. At the same time, it is also worth to be noted that the petitioner was appointed in 1962 but he was never allotted any quarter by the Management and because of that the workman might have occupied the quarter of his colleague on payment of rent. The Management instead of evicting the workman ought to have taken a lenient view by allotting the same quarter to him on payment of rent/penalty etc. The Labour Court rightly held that upholding dismissal will be disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. However taking into consideration the charges levelled against the petitioner the labour Court was not justified in awarding back wages and the consequential benefits.;