TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Delip Jerath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Saurav Arun assisted by Mr. Krishna Shankar for the respondent No. 3.
(2.) THE petitioner in the instant case has prayed for quashing of a portion of the award dated 8.4.1984 passed in Reference Case No. 20 of 1987 whereby and whereunder the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur refused the relief of reinstatement after holding that the order of dismissal passed against him was proper and therefore, instead of passing an order of reinstatement, he proceeded to award compensation to the extent of Rs. 40,000/ - which was supposed to be paid by the Management within six weeks from the date of pronouncement of the award failing which, it was ordered that the workman concerned would be entitled to realise the amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of pronouncement of the award till the date of payment - The petitioner underwent, the disciplinary proceedings on the basis of a charge -sheet which was issued to him the charge -sheet pertains to an allegation that on 20.10.1983, while the petitioner was in B shift duty from 2.00 pm to 10.00 pm, he stole 30 pieces of Lead Openers from the department which was kept concealed in a tiffin box. He then handed over the same to his son namely Shanker Das who was 14 years old. This was detected by the security guards and the materials were therefore prevented from going out of the gate. This charge - sheet was issued on 21.10.1983 observing that the above act amounted to a misconduct on the part of the petitioner as per the Companys Certified Standing Orders and accordingly, he was asked to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. Normally, this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit as an Appellate Authority in respect of an award passed by the Labour Court unless it is established that the award is patently illegal, arbitrary or perverse.
(3.) AFTER having looked into the award and the various documents brought on record, this Court is clearly of the opinion that the instant case fails within the category of being patently absurd and/or perverse and consequently illegal and therefore deserves to be set aside by this Court. The reasons which compel this Court to come to the aforementioned conclusion are many. In this context it would be relevant to advert to the award itself at the outset.;