Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties. This is a second round of litigation of the petitioner being aggrieved by an order of dismissal from service dated 22nd July 2004 passed by the Chief Personnel Manager (Irs), Uranium Corporation of India Limited (Respondent No. 2) after remand by the Tribunal by its Award dated 5th March 1997.
(2.) INCIDENTALLY , earlier order of dismissal was challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal in Reference Case No. 88/1993 made by the Central Government through Ministry of Labour under the relevant provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Tribunal vide its Award dated 5th March 1997 (Annexure -3) quashed the order of dismissal by directing reinstatement of the petitioner with 50% back wages and continuity of service, seniority etc, however with liberty to the Management to proceed with the said domestic inquiry, if it so desire, from the stage of serving copies of the inquiry report to the workman, in accordance with law. The Management challenged the said award in the writ petition CWJC No. 1804/1997 which however was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide its judgment dated 6th January 2004 (Annexure -4) holding that the award of the Tribunal is perfectly legal and valid and does not require interference by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the learned Tribunal while setting aside the termination of the petitioner, had copiously observed that the punishment was severe in nature and had the petitioner got an opportunity to represent before passing of the impugned order of punishment after service of inquiry report, the result would have been different. In the wake of such finding of the Tribunal, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that his reply after service of the inquiry report (Annexure -5), have not been taken into account while imposing a fresh order of dismissal from service which is impugned in the present writ application. He has further argued that as per the alleged charges, 50 workmen were alleged to be responsible for go -slow tactic while the petitioner and few others were only proceeded against and punished for the same. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order passed, is disproportionate to the established misconduct, if any. The finding of the learned Tribunal earlier holding the punishment to be severe to the established misconduct and also directing his reinstatement with 50% back wages, the present order of dismissal from service could not be in contemplation which have however been overlooked by the respondent Corporation.
(3.) LEARNED Senior counsel, appearing for the respondent Corporation, submits that on remand, the petitioner's case was considered in proper perspective and it was also found that on account of the misconduct of the persons proceeded against namely, the present petitioner, P.C. Dhar and Bamia Purty, the Corporation had suffered loss of production to the extent of 300 tonnes of Ore per day for the period of 25 days which was severe enough to warrant imposition of punishment of dismissal from service. It has been further submitted that another delinquent employee Bamia Purty was also proceeded against for the similar charges and in his case, after his dismissal was set aside and the matter was remanded, a fresh order of dismissal was passed by the respondent Corporation and the Industrial Tribunal No. II, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 148/1998 has upheld the action of the Management by its Award dated 21st February 2002. It is submitted that the said employee also challenged the said award before this Court in WPL No. 820/2003. However, the said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 18th January 2012. The said award and the judgment passed in the case of Bamia Purty are annexed as Annexures -A and G to the two counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent corporation on 19th September 2011 and 8th January 2014 respectively. It is therefore submitted that for the same alleged misconduct which has been found established against the respective delinquent employees and one of the orders of punishment having been upheld by this Court as well, the petitioner can hardly make out a case for interference in the impugned order of dismissal from service on the ground that it is disproportionate and excessive in nature. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. The contention of the petitioner based on the observations made by the learned Tribunal on the severity of the punishment while remanding the matter by its Award dated 5th March 1997 passed in Reference Case No. 88/1993, does not cut much ice in view of the fact that all other persons were proceeded against for the same charges, in similar circumstances. Another delinquent employee Bamia Purty also faced punishment of dismissal from service which was upheld by the learned Industrial Tribunal in its Award dated 21st February 2002 passed in Reference Case No. 148/1998. The said award has been also upheld by the learned Single Bench of this Court in WPL No. 820/2003 vide its judgment dated 18th January 2012, which are annexed to the counter affidavit of the respondents. It also appears from perusal of the attending document brought on record by the respondents that the go -slow tactic adopted by the petitioner along with two others namely, Bamia Purty and P.C. Dhar, resulted in loss of 300 tonnes of production of Ore per day which caused serious financial loss to the corporation. Their average rate of drilling was 40 to 50 meters per day, while during the period of misconduct, they had drilled only 24 meters per crew. These facts therefore do not leave any iota of doubt that the misconduct of the petitioner was serious enough for the respondents to impose punishment of dismissal from service which is also supported by similar treatment meted out to similarly situated delinquent like the petitioner for the same charges. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner on the ground of proportionality. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.;