9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1905X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the dismissal order dated 26.08.2002. However, noticing that the Appellant had already crossed the date of superannuation, viz., 31.05.2005, it was ordered that from the date of termination to the date of superannuation, the Appellant would be entitled to all service benefits except back wages which were limited to 50 per cent. 3. The Respondent challenged the award before the High Court of Bombay. As per the impugned judgment dated 08.07.2015 in Writ Petition No. 3268 of 2014, the award was modified by granting only a one-time compensation of an amount equivalent to 50 per cent of the back wages as awarded by the Labour Court. Thus aggrieved, the Appellant is before this Court. 4. The charge against the Appellant was that he had collect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d concluded that, charges of misconduct have been proved against the second party. Besides this, the reporter has not stated before the Enquiry Officer in terms of his report. Accordingly, the enquiry officer has recorded his findings on the basis of no evidence and therefore, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer appears to be perverse one.... 7. On issue No. 2, it was noted that: .....in the light of findings on issue No. 1 that, the enquiry held against the Complainant was fair, proper and legal and the findings of enquiry officer are perverse, then it is for first party to prove the alleged charges of misconduct before this Court. It is pertinent to note that, in their written statement the first party has not made prayer that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... six passengers, then Rs. 36/- ought to have been found excess in his cash bag. However, contrary to this, amount was found less with the second party and hence Respondent by making false allegations issued false charge sheet, conducted enquiry. Principles of natural justice have not been observed by the first party. The alleged passengers have not been examined and an opportunity of cross examining to them is not availed to the second party. The one and the same authority has issued charge sheet, conducted enquiry and suggested the punishment. Accordingly, serious prejudice is caused to the second party. Accordingly, with bias mind enquiry has been conducted. Instead of examining the witnesses the enquiry officer considered their statements ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the said charge sheet was issued with an intention to victimize him. As the charges levelled against the second party are not proved either in the departmental enquiry or before this Court, hence, the dismissal order issued by the first party is nothing but in colourable exercise of employer's right, by falsely implicating the Complainant in a criminal case on false evidence, for patently false reasons, in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice in the conduct of domestic enquiry and with undue haste, amounting to unfair labour practice. Hence, I hold that the dismissal of second party is illegal, violating the provisions of law. (Emphasis supplied) 9. On issue No. 3, it was held as follows: "17. As to issue No. 3: So ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce, it is held that, the findings of enquiry officer are perverse and first party has illegally dismissed him from service, therefore, certainly the second party is entitled for the relief..... 10. Thus, the Reference was answered in favour of the Appellant setting aside the dismissal order. However, taking note of the fact that the Appellant had crossed the age of superannuation, instead of reinstatement, 50 per cent of the back wages from the date of termination till the date of superannuation with all other service benefits were granted. 11. The High Court, in the impugned order, took the view that the Labour Court went wrong in deciding the preliminary issue concerning the fairness of the inquiry and deciding all further issues in one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the High Court has gone wrong in holding that the Labour Court did not follow the procedure. It is seen from the award that the management had not sought for an opportunity for leading evidence. And despite granting an opportunity, no evidence was adduced after the Labour Court held that the findings of the inquiry officer were perverse. Therefore, the Labour Court cannot be faulted for answering the Reference in favour of the Appellant. 15. The Labour Court, on the available materials on record, found that the termination was unjustified on the basis of a perverse finding entered by the inquiry officer. There was no attempt on the part of the management before the Labour Court to establish otherwise. 16. It appears that the High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
