The court emphasized the importance of considering the evidence presented in a departmental enquiry and the different standard of proof required in such proceedings compared to a criminal trial. It also highlighted the statutory condition precedent for exercising the right and availing the remedy under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

( 1 ) THE respondent is a driver attached to the Hassan Depot of the petitioner-Corporation. On 16. 1. 1993 he conducted himself righteously in the premises of the Depot. He assaulted Junior Assistant H. S. Maheshwara and caused him bleeding injuries. Not content with this, he returned to the Depot later in the night with a chopper in hand and terrorized a traffic official and caused damage to the furniture in his office. The matter was immediately reported to the police. Thereafter, a charge sheet was served on the petitioner. When he denied the said charges a disciplinary enquiry was initiated. After holding enquiry the enquiry officer submitted a report that the misconduct alleged against the respondent is proved. Acting on the said report the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of dismissal of the respondent from service. The order of dismissal was passed on 6. 1. 1999. The respondent raised an industrial dispute under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 19. 8. 1999 before the Labour Court at Gulbarga. He contended that the domestic enquiry conducted is not fair and proper. He denied the entire charges Leveled against him and he sought for setting aside the order of dismissal. Enquiry was conducted on the preliminary point. By order dated 9. 4. 2001 the Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry held is valid and proper. Thereafter, the parties were permitted to produce evidence in respect of their respective contentions. The Labour Court on appreciation of the material on record came to the conclusion that the first charge of misconduct alleged against the respondent is not proved. However, the second charge of misconduct stands proved. In exercise of power under Section 11a of the Act, the Labour Court held that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the gravity of charge proved and therefore set aside the order of dismissal, ordered reinstatement without any back wages but with continuity of service by its award dated 29. 6. 2002 in KID No. 394/1999. Against the said award, the present Writ Petition is filed.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner assailing the said award of the Labour Court contends as under:" (a) The finding of the Labour Court that the first misconduct alleged against the workman is not proved in view of the order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate is totally erroneous. When once the Labour Court held that the second misconduct alleged against the workman is proved having regard to the nature of the misconduct, namely workman appearing at the work place with a chopper in his hands assaulting the Junior Assistant and then breaking the table glass of the A. T. S into pieces, besides damaging another table with the chopper, setting aside the order of dismissal on the ground that it is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charge proved is erroneous and contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court. (b) When the workman in the claim petition in categorical terms stated that his claim petition is barred by time, ignoring the law declared by this Court, entertaining such a claim petition, which is barred by time, is not sustainable. Therefore, he submits for the aforesaid reasons, the impugned award is liable to be set aside and the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority is to be upheld. "

( 3 ) PER contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contends when the Criminal Court acquitted the respondent honourably of all the charges levelled against him, the Labour Court was fully justified in holding that the misconduct which was covered under those charges are not proved. Though the second charge was held to be proved it has only resulted in damage to the property and therefore the Labour Court was justified in setting aside the order of dismissal on the ground of punishment being disproportionate to the charges proved in exercise of the powers under Section 11a of the Act. On the question of limitation it was submitte

Click Here to Read the rest of this document