The main legal point established is that an employer is justified in dismissing an employee for misconduct, even without a domestic enquiry, if the misconduct is admitted and proven. The court also emphasized the employer's right to take disciplinary action and the loss of confidence in the employee due to misconduct.

JUDGMENT

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. - This intra-court mandamus appeal is at the instance of the writ petitioner/employer and is directed against an order dated August 1, 2014 passed by a learned Single Judge in WP 13544 (W) of 2002 with CAN 2334 of 2014 thereby refusing to interfere with the award dated May 29, 2002 passed by the learned judge 8th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal ( for short 'the Tribunal') in case no. VIII-52/99.

2. The appellant/ management dismissed the respondent no. 1 from service vide letter dated 22.02.96. The respondent no. 1 protested against such alleged illegal termination before the Labour Department, Government of West Bengal. The Governor in exercise of power conferred by Section 10 read with Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the 1947 Act') referred the dispute before the Tribunal for adjudicating as to whether the termination is justified.

3. The respondent no. 1 filed his written statement before the Tribunal contending that he was a permanent employee under the appellant. He went to the factory premises on January 6, 1996 to collect his outstanding dues as per the instruction of the management. When he was about to leave the factory premises, the durwans checked the tool box of his motorcycle and found one dice which is alleged to be used for the purpose of the factory. It was alleged that the said dice was kept by the durwans at the insistence of the management. It was further stated that on January 7, 1996 he was compelled to sign on a blank paper under undue force and coercion.

4. The appellant in its written statement before the Tribunal contended that the security guard found one bold forging die of the company inside the tool box of the motorbike of the respondent no. 1. On the next day the respondent no. 1 gave a written confession in the presence of number of staff and workmen including the management. The respondent no. 1 started absenting from duties thereafter which compelled the management to dismiss him from service vide letter dated 22.02.96.

5. The learned Tribunal passed an award dated May 29, 2002 reinstating the respondent no. 1 in service with full back wages. The Tribunal expressed doubt as regards the genuinity of the confessional statement. It further held that the alleged act of theft is nothing but a concocted story manufactured by the management and the termination was not justified.

6. The appellant challenged the award passed by the Tribunal by filing a writ petition and the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved the instant appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner.

7. Mr. Ghosh, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that since the respondent no. 1 has admitted the act of theft in a confessional statement signed by him, there is no necessity to issue a charge sheet or holding a domestic enquiry as the act of theft is proved by way of admission. He, further, submitted that even in a case where domestic enquiry was not conducted by the employer, the charges can be proved before the Tribunal or the Labour Court. He, further, contended that the order of the Tribunal and the Writ Court is liable to be set aside on the ground that the Tribunal as well as the Writ Court failed to take into consideration the relevant piece of evidence and arrived at the findings merely on surmise and conjecture. He, further, submitted that since the act of theft has been proved by way of admission no order for reinstatement should be passed as the employer has lost confidence on the employee. He also submitted that even in a case where the order of dismissal/termination is set aside, direction to pay full back wages is not automatic. He submitted that in order to get relief of full back wages the workman has to plead and prove that he was not gainfully employed from the date of his termination from service. He submitted that in the absence of pleading in support of the relief of full back wages no evidence in respect thereof can