H. L. GOKHALE, J.

Decided on: November 30, 2005

( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 10th/11th January, 2002 rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ petition No. 2448 of 1995 filed by the appellant herein. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said Writ Petition by her order and upheld the award dated 11th May, 1994 given by the labour Court at Nashik in Reference (IDA) no. 5 of 1987, which had set aside the dismissal of respondent No. 1 from his service and granted him reinstatement with continuity in service and full back wages from the date of dismissal i. e. 31. 1. 1986 till reinstatement.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts leading to this letters Patent Appeal are as follows:- the appellant is a Company engaged in the business of manufacturing jeep-type vehicles and tractors amongst other products. The appellant has one of its factories situated in the Industrial Estate at Satpur, Nashik. As per para-3 of the Writ Petition, the appellant employs about 1000 employees at the said factory. The 1st respondent was employed in that factory as a Fitter with effect from 1st september, 1983. On 26th July, 1985, at about 3. 30 p. m. when he was leaving the factory driving his scooter after his working hours were over, the Security Supervisor at the factory gate found five straight shank drill bits of different types hidden underneath the mat of the scooter (on which the scooter riders place their feet ). No explanation was offered by respondent No. 1 when he was asked about this discovery.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 was issued a charge-sheet on 28th July, 1985 and was suspended pending the enquiry. The charges levelled against him were as follows:- (i) Theft or dishonesty in connection with the employers business or property. (ii) Acts subversive of discipline and good behaviour on the premises of the establishment. These charges are referable to Clauses 24 (d) and (1) of the Model Standing Orders (as applicable to the Industrial Workmen) framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER a departmental enquiry was conducted. Respondent No. 1 was represented by one Mr. E. G. Woodman, a fellow workman. The appellant-Management examined two witnesses in support of the charges. They were (i) Shri. L. R. Deshmukh, security Supervisor at the relevant time at the factory gate and (ii) Shri. T. H. Patil, the then administrative Officer. Respondent No. 1- workman examined himself and one Shri. Abdul karim, Supervisor in the body building shop. The Enquiry Officer submitted the report on 21st November, 1985 and held that the charges had been proved. The appellant accepted those findings and issued an order dismissing him from service on 31st January, 1986.

( 5 ) THE 1st respondent raised a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and it came to be referred to the Labour Court at Nashik by the order dated 23rd March, 1987. The 1st respondent filed his Statement of Claim on 8th June, 1987. Amongst others in para-2 of his Statement of Claim he contended that the vested interests working in the Company had fabricated a sinister plan to throw him out of the Company. The appellant filed its Written statement on 16th August, 1988. In para-5 of the Written Statement, it denied the knowledge of any such vested interests working in the company who did not like the prosperity of the 1st respondent. It was thereafter stated that further statement about the fabrication of the sinister plan seemed to be figment of his own imagination and was denied by the Company. At the end of para-3 of the Written Statement, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the original enquiry papers were misplaced, though the copies thereof would be produced. It is material to note that the 1st respondent has not raised any dispute about the correctness of the copies of enquiry papers, though he did contend that the enquiry was not conducted fairly and properly. The Managemen