TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) IN this Writ Application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 31.1.2000 (Annexure 6) passed by the respondent No. 1 (Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Dhanbad -cum -Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972) in P.G. Appeal No. 29/99 by which the appeal filed by the respondent No. 3 was allowed and the order of the Controlling Authority passed on 28.4.1999 was set aside and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 5020.00 (Rupees five thousand twenty only) together with ten percent simple interest.
(2.) THE petitioner further prays for quashing the notice dated 9/10.3.2000 (Annexure 7) by which the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Ranchi -cum - Controlling Authority directed the petitioner to pay the aforementioned amount within thirty days. According to the petitioner, the order of the appellate authority is not only contrary to the order of the original fact finding Court (the Industrial Tribunal) which justified the dismissal of the respondent No. 3, but also against the orders of the High Court passed firstly in the Writ Application and then in the Letters Patent Appeal upholding the said dismissal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the respondent No. 3 having been dismissed from service, the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act could not have been made applicable and that too, when there was no evidence before the appellate authority in coming to a different finding contrary to the finding of the Tribunal.
(3.) THE petitioner in the instant case is the Management and have stated that the respondent No. 3 was its employee and was working in the capacity of a Mechanic. On 4.2.1979, at about 8.30 a.m. he indulged himself in riotous activity and stopped one Mahavir Ram Verma with a dagger at the main entrance. When others tried to intervene they were also stabbed. This was considered to be a gross misconduct punishable under Clause 24(B)(G) read with Clause 24(B)(J) of the Certified Standing orders of the Company. Consequently, a charge sheet was served and upon receipt of cause filed by him and upon a finding that it was not satisfactory, a domestic enquiry was conducted. The further case of the petitioner is that all opportunity was given to him and ultimately, the Management terminated him as charges were found to be proved and he was accordingly issued with an order of discharge on 22,4.1979 vide Annexure 1.;