- (1.) HEARD counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondent in detail.
(2.) THE appellant -Management, which was respondent No. 1 CWJC No. 2604 of 1995(R), has challenged the decision of the learned Single Judge therein to the extent it directed the Management to give a decision as to whether, notwithstanding the earlier Award passed by the tribunal it would still like to proceed further and only thereafter to proceed to deal with the merits of the charge issued by the Management.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge set aside the punishment imposed by the management on the ground that the relevant enquiry report, inspite of demand in that behalf, was not handed over to the workman (the respondent herein) and observed that it was open to the Management to proceed with the matter in accordance with the directions of the learned Single Judge as contained in Paragraph 7 of the judgment, as supplemented by the observations/ directions contained in Paragraph 8 of the judgment. If is submitted that pursuant to the direction of this Court, the enquiry report was made available to the workman, though he had not yet filed objections to it. Proceedings were initiated against the workman on the ground that there had been large -scale impersonation in securing employment and the present case was one among them. This was on the basis of a report of the Committee constituted by the management. The employment of the workman was terminated. That led to a Reference to the Industrial Tribunal and the Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal passed by the Management. Thereafter, the Management initiated a fresh proceeding and the workman and others challenged the same before this Court in CWJC No. 2204/98(R) and CWJC No. 2107/98(R). While disposing of those writ petitions even at the stage of admission, a Division Bench of this Court directed the workman to file a show cause with reference to the charge and bring to the notice of the Management, the Award of the Tribunal and to raise the plea that the Management ought not to proceed once again in view of the finding of the Tribunal. The workman filed his show cause. It was thereafter that the fresh order was passed. The learned Judge held that while proceeding further with the enquiry, the Management had not complied with the direction of the Division Bench and directed the Management to first decide what was the effect of the finding of the Tribunal and whether the Management will proceed further in spite of that Award and even if it thinks it fit to proceed, to proceed in accordance with law. Since this Court permitted the proceeding to go on, on the basis of the direction contained in Paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment, we think that it is not necessary to direct the Management to pass a separate order on the plea that the Management ought not to have proceeded further in view of the finding of the Tribunal.;