TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. A.K. Mehta learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.
(2.) THE petitioner (M/s. B.C.C.L.) is aggrieved by the award dated 10.7.1995 passed in Reference Case No. 99 of 1986 as contained at Annexure -3. The short facts which are necessary to be taken note of are that on 4.4.1981 at about 8.15 a.m. the concerned workmen assaulted the Safety Officer by fists and blows which caused bleeding upon him. The management considered this to be an act of insubordination on a superior officer which amounted to a serious misconduct which was also violative of the standing orders applicable to the Establishment. The workmen were issued with charge sheet on the same day, t.e. 4.4.1981, whereafter a domestic inquiry was conducted and an inquiry report was submitted on 20.7.1981 holding the concerned workmen to be guilty of the misconduct levelled against them. Sub -sequently an order of dismissal was passed on 20.8.1981. Being aggrieved, the concerned workmen raised an industrial dispute and upon failure of the conciliation proceedings, the matter ultimately culminated in reference for adjudication before the respondent No. 1 vide Reference Case No. 99 of 1986. Subsequently the said Court gave its Award on 5.2.1988 holding that the dismissal was proper and justified. Being aggrieved with the said order, the sponsoring union moved the then Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court vide CWJC No. 708 of 1988(R) and by judgment dated 23.3.1995 the said Court held that "he was unable to accept the contention that the award is vitiated for the reason that the Tribunal did not properly appreciate the effect of acquittal of the workmen in the criminal case." Having thus held, the said Court however came to a conclusion that the Tribunal had omitted to decide as to whether the punishment of dismissal was appropriate or whether a lesser punishment would have served the ends of justice. Thereafter the matter was remanded for purposes of considering as to whether the punishment of dismissal was too harsh in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(3.) IT was thereafter that the impugned Award was once again passed on 10.7.1995 holding inter alia that the Award of dismissal was not proper and that too specially when the Criminal Court had found them not guilty of the charges levelled against them. It may be pointed out here at this stage that for the same offence the concerned workmen were also proceeded against criminally by a Criminal Court in which they were acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that as there was violation of the natural justice, the punishment of dismissal should be reduced and that instead of dismissal, the concerned workmen should be reinstated in the category of service as they were on the date of dismissal together 25% of back wages from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement including bonus and other benefits if any in the mean time and main - tained their seniority in the service. He however ordered that they will be deprived of two increments to be withheld by the Management of M/s. B.C.C.L. permanently.;