TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties.
(2.) IN this writ application, the petitioner M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd., Jamshedpur have challenged the award dated 26.9.1996 (pronounced on 7.11.1996) as contained at Annexure 1 and passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No. 18 of 1987, by reason whereof the dismissal of the concerned workman (respondent No.2) was set aside and he was reinstated with full back wages with all intervening increments, continuity in service and all other benefits that he would have earned, had he continued in service of the Company. The order of reinstatement and payment of entire back wages was directed to be given effect to together with increments stated above within six weeks from the date of the award. Over and above the aforesaid, the petitioners were directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,0001 - as costs of litigation to the respondent No.2. In the event the award was not implemented within the period indicated above, the Presiding Officer further ordered that the workman shall be entitled to realize the emoluments with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 14.3.1990 delivered on a preliminary issue, by reason whereof it was held that the domestic enquiry had not been conducted fairly, properly and according to the principles of natural justice. In the backdrop of the reliefs sought for in the instant writ application, it would be necessary to look into the facts of this case, which, incidentally, appears to have had a chequered history.
(3.) THE facts of the case is that on or about 30.3.1984 a memorandum was issued upon the Respondent No.2, describing the same to be the chargesheet, bearing No. AOP/1390/5, by which the respondent No. 2 was asked to show cause as to why disciplinary action be not taken against him for an act amounting to misconduct within the meaning of Standing Order No. 23. The misconduct alleged was that Holding No. 219, Block 'A' Sonari bastee, measuring 308 square feet had been unauthorisedly purchased by the Respondent No.2, although this holding was meant purely for residential purposes. He unauthorisedly converted the same into a commercial holding by opening five shops after encroaching the company's vacant land and did acts of addition and alteration to the building without obtaining any permission for the same. The charge further alleged that the present area under occupation was 500 square feet approximately whereas the alleged area was only 308 square feet. A further charge was levelled to the extent that the Respondent No. 2 had encroached upon an area measuring 50' x 10' on the year and had built a compound wall enclosing the aforementioned encroached land.;