JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner has challenged the Award of the Labour Court Jamnagar dated 6.1.2006 passed in Reference (LCJ) No.470 of 1991 granting reinstatement with 50% back-wages to the Respondent Workman.

FACTS:

2. The Petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the manufacture of soda ash, salt and other chemicals. The Respondent workman was working in the Foundary Department of the Factory of the petitioner.

3. On 18.4.1991 at around 7.15 pm the workman alongwith 2 to 4 other workmen assaulted one Punja Naran with a knife causing him grievous injury. After recording preliminary statements of various persons a charge sheet was issued to the respondent workman on 23.4.1991.

4. Pursuant to the Charge Sheet a departmental inquiry was conducted. In the Departmental Inquiry one D.S.Bath, Security Officer, Shri Babulal Chhotalal, Warden and Shri Nagajan Sajan were examined as witnesses and after conclusion of the Inquiry a report was submitted on 26.4.1991 in which charges levelled against the respondent were held to be proved. The Respondent was dismissed from service by an order dated 29.4.1991.

5. On his dismissal from service the workman challenged the same by raising an industrial dispute which was numbered as stated herein above.

6. The Labour Court by the Award under challenged directed the Petitioner Company to reinstate the Respondent workman with 50% back-wages. The Respondent was acquitted in the Criminal Case filed against him and the competent court recorded the acquittal in the year 2000 i.e. nine years after the order of dismissal was passed.

7.Mr.K.M.Patel learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr.Varun Patel learned Advocate for the Petitioner made the following submissions.

8.Mr.Patel, taking the Court through the Inquiry Report and the evidence of the witnesses, namely Shri Bath, the Security Office, Shri Bath, Nagajan Sajan and Shri Shukla would submit that all the three witnesses had clearly deposed on the incident in question in detail recording the fact that the Respondent had assaulted Punja Naran who was driving a Luna with a pillion Rider Soma Kana.

9. Taking the Court to the findings of the Labour Court he would submit that the finding recorded by the Labour Court that there were no eye witnesses and that the enquiry was bad as the victim Punja Naran and Soma Kana were not recorded was a finding that was perverse.

10. Mr.Patel learned Senior Advocate would submit that the Labour Court had by way of a detailed order recorded on 30.5.2005 had held that the Inquiry was legal and proper. That order had become final and therefore once having held that the inquiry was proper it was not proper for the Labour Court to go into the questions of propriety, justness and legality of the findings of the Inquiry Officer.

11. Mr.K.M.Patel would further submit that the Labour Court overlooked the fact that it could not have gone into the question of sufficiency and adequacy of evidence when the Inquiry Officer based on the evidence on record had held that the charge was proved. There was clear evidence in terms of the testimonies of the three witnesses Shri Bath, Naga Sajan and Shri Shukla and therefore the Labour Court could not have held that as the victim Punja Naran and Soma Khima were not examined the proceedings were vitiated, on the ground that important witnesses were not examined.

12. Mr.Patel would submit that the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction in re-appreciating evidence on record once the inquiry was held to be just and proper. It was not open for the Labour Court to re-appreciate the findings as if it was sitting in appeal over the findings of the Inquiry Officer.

13. Shri Patel would submit that the Labour Court committed an error in considering the record of the Criminal Case and the evidences of the statements recorded on such case when the purpose and the object of the criminal case and the depar