IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove charges in departmental proceedings, the standard of proof required, the principles of discrimination and proportionality in imposing punishment, and the entitlement to backwages based on the findings of the inquiry proceedings.

JUDGMENT

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. A. K. Clerk waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent– employee.

2. Employer – Company has filed this petition challenging the award of Industrial Court, Surat dated 20.11.2019, in Appeal (I.C) No. 38 of 2012, wherein the petitioner was directed to treat the service of respondent as continuous service until his date of retirement and further directed to pay 50% back wages with all consequential benefits.

3. The facts in brief as referred in the petition are as under:-

The respondent – employee was working as meter reader in the petitioner’s establishment. A departmental inquiry was initiated against respondent vide chargesheet dated 23.05.1994. The said chargesheet was thereafter revised on 02.07.1996. The chargesheet refers to misconduct of respondent – employee while he was working at Udhana Rural Sub-Division. Pursuant to the issuance of chargesheet, appointment of inquiry officer was done and inquiry was concluded. It was case of the petitioner that the inquiry was conducted after following due procedure. The Inquiry Officer gave his report on 31.05.1996 wherein the charges leveled against the respondent – employee was held to be proved. Upon charges being proved, the respondent was served with second show-cause notice and after considering his explanation on the second show-cause notice, order of termination dated 01.05.1997 was passed. Against the order of termination dated 01.05.1997, the respondent – employee preferred appeal before the appellate committee which came to be rejected. Against the order of termination dated 01.05.1997 and rejection of appeal, the respondent filed proceedings before the Labour Court, Surat under the Section 78 and 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (‘the BIR Act’ for short). The said application was registered as BIR (T) Application No. 705 of 1997. In the BIR(T) Application No. 705 of 1997, the petitioner – Company appeared and filed its reply. In BIR (T) Application No. 705 of 1997, the inquiry proceedings were challenged and the Labour Court by interim order dated 17.12.2002, held the inquiry against the respondent as vitiated granting the opportunity to the petitioners to lead evidence before the Labour Court. Against the interim order dated 17.12.2002, holding the inquiry as vitiated, the petitioner – Company preferred revision application which came to be dismissed by order dated 05.05.2006. Against the order dated 17.12.2002 and 05.05.2006, a petition was preferred being Special Civil Application No. 23514 of 2006 which came to be rejected by order dated 16.01.2007 on the ground that the order dated 17.12.2002 is an interlocutory order. Subsequently, the petitioner lead documentary and oral evidences. Upon adjudication the Labour Court, rejected BIR (T)Application No. 705 of 1997 vide order dated 31.05.2012. Aggrieved by the order of Labour Court in BIR (T) Application No. 705 of 1997, the respondent – workman preferred appeal registered as Appeal (I.C.) No. 38 of 2012 before the Industrial Court, Surat. Upon adjudication, the Industrial Court, Surat held the termination of respondent – employee as illegal directing the petitioner to treat the service of respondent – employee as continuous service till the date of retirement. It was also further directed to pay 50% backwages and all consequential benefits, aggrieved by which present petition is filed.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave for the petitioner- Company and learned advocate Mr. A. K. Clerk for the respondent – employee.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave for the petitioner – Company submitted that the order of Industrial Court, Surat in Appeal (I.C.) No. 38 of 2012 is erroneous because of following reasons: -

5.1 The respondent – employee was served with a chargesheet dated 23.05.1994 which came to be revised by charge memorandum dated 02.07.1996. In the charge memorandum dated 02.07.1996, the charges leveled against respondent – employe