S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by the Management/petitioner M/s Uranium Corporation of India Limited, Singhbhum West (hereinafter to be referred as the Corporation') against the Award dated 5th March, 1997, communicated vide Notification dated 12th April, 1997, passed in Reference Case No.90 of 1993, whereby and whereunder, the Presiding Officer, Central Government industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad, has set aside the order of dismissal of 2nd respondent (now substituted by the heirs) and has ordered for reinstatement of his services with 50% of the back wages and other consequential benefits, including continuity of service, seniority etc.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition mainly on the ground that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can not re -appreciate the evidence to come to a different finding nor can it substitute its own findings in place of the findings, given by the Industrial Tribunal and thereby, requested to dismiss the writ petition. On the other hand, according to the counsel for the petitioner, the impugned Award dated 5th March, 1997, communicated vide Notification dated 12th April, 1997, not being based on evidence and being perverse, is fit to be set aside. The fact, as not disputed by the parties, is that the workman (late Nimai Majhi), Drill -man 'C' of Mines, was proceeded against departmentally and was charge -sheeted on 30th April, 1992 for the following charges of misconduct: (i) Deliberate and. concerned slowing down of work, amounting to misconduct under C.S.O. -31(e); (ii) Willful insubordination and disobedience alone and in combination with another of lawful and reasonable order of a superior under C.S.O. -42(a); (iii) Deliberate slowing down of work in combination with others, amounting to misconduct under C.S.O. -42(v); (iv) Willful damage and loss of working progress of the Company, amounting to misconduct under C.S.O. -42(y); (v) Negligence of duty including malingering of job, amounting to misconduct under C.S.O. -42(cc) and (vi) Acts or omission lowering down the quality of goods manufactured and reducing the production, amounting to misconduct under C.S.O. -42(g).
(3.) IN the departmental proceeding, the workman was given notice and after full opportunity, he was held guilty of the charges. The Management adduced evidence and witnesses and the workman also adduced evidence and examined witnesses in his defence. The workman having been found guilty of the charges of misconduct, was dismissed from the services of the Corporation by an Office Order dated 21st September, 2992.;