- (1.) WE have heard both sides and gone through the order of the learned Single Judge.
(2.) PETITIONER -appellant was a workman with the respondent that is Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. He was issued a chargesheet dated 24.9.90 which is reproduced below: - "You are charged with having committed the following acts of misconduct : 1. Commission of an act subversive of discipline. 2. Carrying on private business prejudicial to the Company's interest. The above charges are based on the statement of allegations enclosed. The above amount to acts of misconduct in accordance with Rules 26 (x) and (xiv) of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company. You are directed to submit to the undersigned your written explanation within ten days from the receipt of the charge sheet and to show cause why the charges should not be established and why appropriate penalty including dismissal should not be imposed. Any explanation that you may make shall be taken into consideration before taking further action. In case you fail to submit any explanation within the stipulated period, it would be presumed that you have nothing to say in your defence and further action on the merit of the case would be taken against you without any further reference." The details of the charges were spelt out in the document accompanying the charge -sheet which are also reproduced below : - "Shri Samin Ansari, SW(W5), P.No.12271 has been working in HSCL since 27.11.71. On verification, it has been found that he applied on 15.5.85 for allotment of a low costg shop to run a Grocerty -cum -General Provision Shop, against advertisement no. TA/A/11/8/0598 dated 3.4.1985 published by SAIL, BSP, B.S.City. In this connection, Shri Ansari concealed the fact of his brother's employment in BSP and made false declaration regarding his own employment in HSCL. In furtherance of private business Sri Ansari applied for licence for a Ration shop and deposited Rs.50/ - (Rs.fifty) only in T.C Form no.8 in the State Bank of India, Dhanbad on 4.3.86. Sri Ansari has entered into correspondence with SAIL, BSP in connection with allotment of a shop. He has been allotted shop no. 6 (LCS) in Sector IX by the Town Administrator, SAIL, BSP, B.S.City vide allotment order no. TA/A/Allot/Shop/LCS/IX/6/85 -0483 dated 28.2.1986 in his own name. Shri Ansari has been running private business in the Shop no.6, LCS, Sector IX, B S City after taking possession of the said shop on 12.3.86. The above acts of Sri Ansari amount to misconduct under clause nos.26 (x) and (xiv) of the Certified Standing Orders by which Shri Ansari is governed."
(3.) THE petitioner -appellant was found guilty in the domestic enquiry and was terminated. The matter was taken before the Labour Court by way of Reference Case No. 08 of 1992. The Labour Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner -appellant by its judgment dated 24.5.96. The employer approached this Court by way of Writ Petition which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. The employer persisted in Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A no. 127 of 1997, which was allowed by a Division Bench by its judgment and order dated 1.5.97. By that judgment, the appellant / workman was found guilty of all the charges, but the Division Bench felt that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate and the matter was sent back to the employer for reconsideration of the punishment. The decision of the Division Bench was upheld by the Supreme Court vide order dated 28.8.97 in SLP no. 14888 of 1997.;