JUDGMENT - Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.:---The petitioner before the Court in these proceedings has impugned the correctness of two Awards of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal dated 21st November, 1996 and 22nd July, 1997 in a reference to adjudication under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act"). By an earlier Award, the Part-I Award dated 11th September, 1996, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the disciplinary enquiry which had been held by the petitioner in respect of a charge of misconduct against the first and second respondents was fair and proper. By the first of the two Awards which are sought to be impugned in these proceedings, the Part-II Award, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the findings which were recorded by the Enquiry Officer were perverse. By the second of the said Awards, the Part III Award, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the action of the petitioner in terminating the services of the first and second respondents was not legal or justified. The Tribunal has, therefore, granted the relief of reinstatement to both the workmen. Insofar as the question of backwages is concerned, the first respondent has been granted no backwages, while insofar as the second respondent is concerned, there is a direction by the Tribunal to pay him backwages from 9th April, 1991 until February, 1992. The workmen have been granted continuity of service and all other benefits.

2. The dispute between the parties in the present case originates in the charge-sheet which was issued by the employer which is the petitioner before the Court on 10th July, 1986. The first and second respondents were in the service of the employer, which is a public sector corporation, at the material time on 10th March, 1986. The first respondent was employed as a Process Technician in salary grade RO. 8, while the second respondent was working as an Assistant Process Technician. The charge-sheets which were issued to the first and second respondents contain a similar allegation to the effect that these workmen were on duty on 10th March, 1986 in the shift between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. for the C.B.F.S loading operations in the Oil Movement and Storage (O.M.S.) area. The abbreviation C.B.F.S. stands for Carbon Black Feed Stock. On the shift in which the first and second respondents were deployed, a Tank Truck bearing Registration No. MCU 1913 was loaded with C.B.F.S. The first and second respondents had then made and initialled a recording in the weighment slip to the effect that the quantity which was loaded on the tanker was 10,250 kgs. The charge-sheet recited that subsequently, the Police authorities who had investigated the matter had informed the employer that the tank truck was loaded with a "substantial amount of excess C.B.F.S". The charge-sheet also recited that it was confirmed that the entries made by the first and second respondents in the weighment slip indicated the aforesaid quantity of 10,250 kgs. as having been loaded in the Tank Truck. The billing to the customer was also made on the basis of this quantity. The loading of an excess quantity of C.B.F.S., over and above what was recorded in the weighment slip was alleged to have resulted in a loss to the Corporation and, was according to the employer, indicative of a serious act of misconduct. The two workmen were consequently charged for misconduct under the Standing Order 28(ix) "fraud or dishonesty in connection with the company's business" and 28 (xvii) "wilful falsification of records of the company". In the nearly identical replies which were furnished by the first and second respondents to the charge-sheet, the two workmen did not deny the fact that on 10th March, 1986 they were deployed in the morning shift between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. respectively as Weigh Bridge Acting Supervisor and Weigh Bridge Operator. Similarly, both the workmen expressly admitted that they had made a record of a loading of a total quantity of 10,250 kgs. o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document