The petitioner filed the present writ petition questioning the award dated 28.03.2007 of the Labour Court in I.D.No.58 of 2002, which modified the punishment of summary dismissal, meted out by the respondent Company (Delta Paper Mills Limited) through its order dated 23.10.2001, to that of compulsory retirement.

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner joined the respondent Mills (‘the Company’, for brevity) in 1982 as packer and later got promoted as finisher. After putting in nearly two decades of service, on 23.10.2001, the respondent Company charge sheeted the petitioner alleging that he had stolen the Company letter-heads and prepared fake salary certificate by forging the signature of the Deputy Manager (Personnel) to enable some persons of the Company to obtain house loans, thereby securing pecuniary benefit of Rs.5,000/- in the form of bribe. Based on the said charges, when the respondent Company issued a show cause notice on 30.08.2001, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 01.09.2001. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the respondent Company proceeded with the departmental enquiry and eventually imposed the capital punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner through order dated 23.10.2001. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner carried the matter before the Labour Court by raising an industrial dispute in I.D.No.58 of 2002. In course of time, through award dated 28.03.2007, the Labour Court modified the order of dismissal to that of compulsory retirement with effect from the date of dismissal of the petitioner i.e., from 23.10.2010. Having not been satisfied with the modified award passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

3. Sri M.Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, in the above factual backdrop, has contended that the charges levelled against the petitioner are baseless and have been cooked up by the respondent Company on the ill advice of certain employees who were inimically disposed of towards the petitioner. Certain authorities of the respondent Company even threatened the petitioner of dire consequences if he had to take any steps to defend his case. Succumbing to the threats, the petitioner did not take any legal assistance during the departmental enquiry. Having denied all the charges as utterly baseless, the learned counsel has contended that the petitioner being illiterate could not be accused of forging the signature of the Deputy Manager (Personnel).

4. The learned counsel has contended that during the course of enquiry, the petitioner was not given proper opportunity to defend himself and it resulted in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel has also made a grievance on the count that the explanation submitted and the material produced by the petitioner during the course of enquiry were not considered properly and the whole enquiry was a mere ritual. Elaborating on the principle of proportionality, the learned counsel has submitted that even for the sake of arguments, if the charges were held to have been proved, the punishment of dismissal from service is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the alleged charges. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel that the disciplinary authority and subsequently the Labour Court ought to have taken into consideration the unblemished long service of the petitioner for about two decades before handing out the harshest punishment of dismissal from service.

5. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the whole enquiry was initiated on an anonymous complaint or on a false representation made by certain unknown persons. Based on such an innuendo, there could not have been any enquiry at all, in the first place. Grave as it sounds, the learned counsel has also contended that, before the initiation of the enquiry, the officials of the respondent Company obtained the signatures of the p