The Enquiry Officer should base conclusions only on the evidence recorded in the enquiry, and the court can modify the quantum of punishment under Section 11A.

JUDGMENT :

1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the Part-I Award dated 11/01/2018 by which, the Labour Court had upheld the enquiry and had also sustained the finding of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner has also challenged the Final Award dated 21/04/2018 by which, the Labour Court answered the Reference in the negative and concluded that the punishment of dismissal from service awarded to the petitioner is an appropriate punishment.

2. Prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the petition read as under :

“a. Rule be issued.

b. this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of mandamus or Writ of certiorari or Writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction thereby calling of the records and proceedings of the Reference IDA No.42 of 2014 from the office of the 2nd Labour Court, Nashik and on perusal thereof be pleased to quash and set aside the Impugned Award dated 11-01-2018 and 21-04-2018 passed by the Learned presiding officer, 2nd Labour Court, Nashik in Reference (IDA) No.42 of 2014;

c. this Hon’ble Court be pleased to reinstate the petitioner into the service with the Respondent Company along with backwages.”

3. By an order dated 29/09/2021, this court came to a prima facie conclusion that the punishment awarded to the petitioner was harsh, as compared to the gravity of the charges levelled against him. This court also noted that there is no evidence to indicate that the locker, in which certain items were found, belonged to the petitioner or was allotted to the petitioner. This court, therefore, questioned as to whether any relevance can be attributed to the evidence led by the management. The petition was, therefore, admitted and was posted for a peremptory final hearing on 27/10/2021 at 04.00 p.m.

4. By order dated 15/02/2022, this petition was listed for final hearing on 23/02/2022. On 23/02/2022, I had passed the following order:

“1. This matter was specifically posted today for final hearing. The learned Advocate representing respondent No.2-employer is absent.

2. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has already commenced her submissions.

3. Stand over to 24/02/2022 as part-heard.

4. If the learned Advocate for respondent No.2 remains absent tomorrow, this matter would be heard in his absence.”

5. Even today, none appeared for the management.

6. The learned advocate for the petitioner canvassed her final submissions and with her assistance, I have gone through the record available. The factors disclosed in the petition and the record, are as under :-

(a) On 01/11/1985, the petitioner joined the respondent-company as a permanent worker.

(b) On 07/12/2011, the locker, purportedly allotted to the petitioner, was sealed.

(c) On 20/12/2011, a panchnama was purportedly carried out.

(d) On 21/12/2011, the petitioner was placed under suspension, pending disciplinary proceedings.

(e) On 28/02/2012, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner, specifically alleging that the locker was allocated to him, situated in the EP Shed of R & D Department.

(f) 49 items were found in the locker, which are as under :