Judgement

ALAGIRISWAMI, J .:- This is an appeal by special leave against the award of the Labour Court Poona, directing the reinstatement of the respondent in the service of the appellant company.

2. The respondent was a watchman in the factory of the appellant at Chinchwad, Poona. A domestic enquiry was held against him in respect of an incident on the night of 15-16 December 1963 and following the enquiry he was dismissed from service on the 7th January 1964. His appeal was dismissed after a personal hearing by the appellate authority. Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act came into force on 1st December1965 and on 23rd June 1967 a reference was made by the Government of Maharashtra regarding the dismissal of the respondent to the Labour Court, Poona, and the Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry held against the respondent was defective, that the charge against the respondent had not been made out and directed him to be reinstated.

3. There were four charges framed against the respondent in the domestic enquiry.They were:

(1) Suspected dishonesty in connection with the company s property.

(2) Gross negligence in performance of his duties.

(3) Disobedience of instructions given by the superiors.

(4) Commission of an act subversive of discipline.

For the purposes of this appeal it is not necessary to consider other charges than charge No, 1. The charge-sheet is rather a bit confused but the statement of facts regarding charge No,1 is clear and there cannot be any doubt or confusion about it. The facts stated in the chargesheet are as follows: .

"It is reported that while you were on duty in the 2nd shift on Sunday the 15th December, 1963 at about 10.30 P.M. you left the guard room and went into the factory. While returning from the factory you are reported to have brought out with you a new Fluorescent Tube and to have kept it in the guard room. Immediately after this you are also reported to have directed one of the two watchmen on duty at that time to take a round with the tel-a-tel clock. It is further reported that at about 11.20 P.M, you removed the Fluorescent Tube from the guardroom and were carrying it away out of the factory, At this stage you were challenged by the watchman, Shri M.B . Shinde and consequently you brought back the tube and left it in the guard room. The Company had, however, not received any report in the matter from you.

You were, therefore, called up when you reported for duty on 16th afternoon and were questioned in the matter. When you were asked to submit your written report about the incident and about -your failure to report immediately to your superiors you stated that you will submit your report after consulting your pleader.

The above mentioned facts and particularly your unwillingness to submit written report when called upon to do so give rise to doubts about your integrity and faithfulness both in regard to the security and property belonging to the Company for which you are responsible while on duty as a person in charge of the security of the Company."

4. The Labour Court took the view that the charge of suspected dishonesty in connection with the company s property did not constitute any misconduct either under Standing Order 24 or otherwise. and therefore no action could be taken against the respondent on the basis of that charge, and also that the charge-sheet was vague. We can see no vagueness in the charge-sheet and on the basis of the facts set out above there could be no doubt that the charge is one of an attempt to steal the company s property. The respondent being a watchman the charge is a serious one and if it was held proved he deserves nothing short of dismissal.

5. The Labour Court was concerned only with the question whether the domestic enquiry held against the respondent was a proper enquiry. It held that the enquiry was not a proper one on the ground that the respondent had produced a police, constable as his witness at the time of enquiry and this witness expressed