D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original respondent. The respondent, who is original petitioner had preferred writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1886 of 2005, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge and the order passed by this appellant management dated 23rd February, 2004 was quashed and set aside. Hence, the original respondent has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) Factual MATRIX: The respondent was working as Class-IV employee with this appellant. He had indulged into a grave misconduct of free fight with another workmen within the factory premises of this appellant. This free fight had taken place between 4-5 employees. They were given charge sheet and ultimately, after holding departmental inquiry, this respondent and other workmen were dismissed from the services vide order dated 21st September, 1997. This is Order No.-I. The workmen including this respondent/ preferred writ petition being CWJC No. 239 of 1998(R), which was decided vide order dated 25th January, 2000 and it was held that the quantum of punishment is shockingly disproportionate and the matter was remanded for reappreciation of quantum of punishment. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge , L.P.A. No. 29 of 2001 was preferred by this appellant-management. This LPA was dismissed vide order dated 13.6.2001. Hence, now the appellant had to re-appreciate / re-decide the quantum of punishment, in stead of dismissal. Thus, this appellant-management had to take a decision for imposing the punishment except dismissal. The appellant-management re-appreciated the quantum of punishment as per the direction given in CWJC No. 239 of 1998(R) and now another order was passed on 14th September, 2000 discharging the respondent( delinquent) from the services in stead of, dismissal from the services. The effect will be that the respondent will now get the retirement dues. This is Order No. II. Now this replaced order of punishment, was also challenged in W.P.(S) No. 2665 of 2001, which was again allowed by this Court vide order dated 20th November, 2003 and again the matter was remanded for reappreciation of quantum of punishment. By virtue of the aforesaid judgment, now this time, no Letters Patent Appeal was preferred by the management, but, they thought it fit to pass 3rd order of Punishment. This is order dated 23rd February, 2004 ,whereby, the order of re-reinstatement was passed, but, without back wages. This order is Annexure-1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. This is Order No.-III. Again the respondent filed W.P.(S) No. 1886 of 2005 challenging the Order No. -III, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 18th April, 2013 and 50% back wages has been awarded by the learned Single Judge. It further appears from the facts of the case that one more employee, namely Sri Radha Kant Jha was also given similar treatment, who preferred WP(S) No. 5070 of 2005, wherein this Court passed an order dated 27.01.2010 in which no back wages was granted. This order is Annexure- 2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. Thus, instead of being guided by this order dated 27th January, 2010 in WPS No. 5070 of 2005, which was confirmed in LPA No. 292 of 2010 vide order dated 29th September, 2010, the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1886 of 2005 granted 50 % back wages and hence, the respondent has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.
(3.) Arguments CANVASSED BY COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the respondent (original petitioner) who was employed with the appellant as Class-IV employee, was dismissed from the services for the grave misconduct vide order dated 21st September, 1997. Thereafter writ petition was preferred being CWJC No. 239 of 1998(R), which was decided vide order dated 25th January, 2000 wherein, it was observed by this Court that quantum of punishment imposed upon the respondent( original petitioner-delinquent) was excessive and hence, the matter was remanded for re-consideration of the quantum of punishment. This order was also confirmed in L.P.A. No. 29 of 2001 as L.P.A. No. 29 of 2001 was dismissed on 13th June, 2001. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that thereafter Order No.-II was passed on 14th September, 2000 and the punishment inflicted upon the respondent was reduced from dismissal to discharge from the services. Thus, the respondent was entitled to get the retirement benefits. This punishment was also challenged by way of another writ petition being WPS No. 2665 of 2001 and again, this appellant was directed to re-consider the quantum of punishment. This writ petition was decided on 20th November, 2003. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that once again the quantum of punishment was reduced and now the Order No.-III was passed by this appellant on 23rd February, 2004 and now the respondent was reinstated without back wages. This order was again challenged in writ petition being WPS No. 1886 of 2005 and this Court has granted 50% back wages vide order dated 18th April, 2013, without appreciating the fact that initially there was a free fight in which more than one employees were involved including this respondent and another workmen. The punishment was inflicted upon another workman, who had preferred WPS No. 5070 of 2005 which was decided on 27th January, 2010 wherein this Court has not granted any back wages ,but, only reinstatement. This decision has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. It is further submitted by the appellant that the punishment inflicted has now been reduced from dismissal to discharge and from discharge to reinstatement, with no back wages. Looking to the nature of misconduct, there was a free fight between the employees and other employees have also been awarded punishment, which has been approved by this Court and now vide Order No.-III dated 23rd February, 2004, the respondent has been reinstated without back wages. In fact, the respondent- workman has not worked from 21st September, 1997 onwards. Even otherwise also, he is not entitled for back wages, nor the punishment can be said to be unreasonably excessive, nor it can be lebelled shockingly disproportionate punishment. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18th April, 2013 in WPS No. 1886 of 2005 deserves to be quashed and set aside.;