JUDGMENT :

C.V. Bhadang, J.

1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondent no. 1, who appears in person, waives service. Heard finally by consent of parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioner/party no. II is challenging an award dated 23.10.2017, passed by the Industrial Tribunal at Panaji (Tribunal, for short), thereby holding the action of the petitioner in terminating the services of the petitioner, as illegal and unjustified and directing payment of full back wages from the date of discharge, till the date of superannuation alongwith benefits of all the settlements, with costs of Rs. 2 lakhs. The relief of reinstatement was not competent, as in the interregnum, the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation.

3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated thus:

The respondent no. 1 was employed as a Senior Accounts Assistant with the petitioner since 31.05.1983. He was confirmed in service on 02.06.1986. On 02.11.2007, the respondent no. 1 came to be discharged from service, on the ground that the management had lost confidence in him and it was found to be prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner, to retain him in service. By way of abundant caution, the petitioner was offered one month's wages. The reason why, according to the petitioner, it had lost confidence in the respondent no. 1, are set out in the letter of discharge dated 02.11.2007. In short, according to the petitioner, the respondent no. 1 had left the workplace, during working hours and attended the office of the Inspector of Factories, on the dates as set out in para 2 of the letter and had connived with one Mardolkar, an office bearer of the local unit of Shiv Sena, in obtaining certain information from the Inspector of Factories concerning the Company, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act, for short), in order to "project the Company as a bad corporate citizen". It was claimed that the respondent no. 1 being an employee of the Company could have obtained the information from the Company itself. It was also alleged that the respondent no. 1 had supplied information relating to the Company to Mr. Mardolkar including a copy of the internal notice/memo dated 26.05.2000 signed by Mr. Dilip Deshpande, Vice President of the Company.

4. It may be mentioned that the petitioner was an office bearer of Zuari Agro Workers Union (Minority Union, for short), which was de-registered at the instance of the Company. It was contended that the act of the respondent no. 1 in conspiring with Mr. Mardolkar, a member of a political outfit and who was not an employee of the Company and acting against the interest of the Company, was to settle the score about de-registration of the Union.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the order of discharge, the respondent no. 1 raised an industrial dispute. The appropriate Government by an order dated 02.09.2008 referred the dispute to the Tribunal, under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act, for short).

6. The respondent no. 1 filed a statement of claim. It was contended that on his confirmation on 01.12.1983, the respondent no. 1 joined the Union and was a party to several negotiations and had signed certain settlements. The Union was a Minority Union, representing the workmen in the Administrative office, while the Zuari Agro Chemicals Limited Employees' Union (Majority Union), represented the workers in the technical categories. He was elected as a General Secretary of the Minority Union in January 1999 and had raised issues relating to the interest of the employees. The adverse allegations made, the charges levelled and the motives imputed were denied. It was contended that the respondent no. 1 never left during the working hours, without the permission of the competent authority. The allegations about engaging in conspiracy with Mr. Mardolkar were denied. It was contended that the petitioner being a permanent employee could not have been discharged on allegations, which were fab