This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Award passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dibrugarh in Reference Case No. 4 of 1994, which arose in the following circumstances.

2. The Management of the Numaligarh Tea Estate made physical verification of the food grains stock on 30.9.92 in presence of the concerned workman, Stores Clerk and it was revealed that there was shortfall of about 7,333 Kgs of rice and 3,875 Kgs of Atta. According to the Management, the shortfall was duly acknowledged by the workman, Stores Clerk. The food grains stock of the godown was handled by the concerned workman Stores Clerk along with the Head Godown Clerk to the exclusion of other workmen. On detecting the shortfall, explanations were asked from the concerned workman, Stores Clerk. The explanation was not found satisfactory whereupon the authorities proceeded with framing of formal charge against the workman. The workman submitted explanation and denied the charge, the Management proceeded with the domestic enquiry and the workman was allowed to be defended by his lawyer. The Head Godown Clerk was also simultaneously charged by the Management. A common enquiry was held in respect of both the employees, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report whereby the Head Godown Clerk was absolved of the charge and found the charge framed against the workman as fully established. The Management agreed with the finding of the Inquiry Officer and dismissed the workman from service. An industrial dispute was raised by the State Govt at the instance of Assam Chah Karmachari Sangha, which espoused the cause of the workman. The State Govt by notification No.GLR. 199/93/17 dated 16.2.94, referred the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. The workman has pleaded before the Inquiry Officer that the allegation of the shortage of food grains was absurd. It was asserted that there was no foolproof system for control of supply and stocking of the food grains and there was no round the clock security guard. That there was no report of any theft of such a huge quantity of food grains; nor was any report of such theft lodged before the police. That the stock of food grains are sometimes received by the workman, sometimes by the Head Godown Clerk, the Welfare Officer or even by the executive officers of the tea garden. It was further stated that the keys of godown remain with the staff only during the working hours and then those are sent to the Manager's bungalow after the working hours. That the workman was never the custodian of the food grains's stock and therefore; he could not be held solely responsible for maintenance of the stock.

3. Before the Labour Court, both the Management as well as the workman adduced evidence on the fairness of the enquiry as also on merits. The Management examined the Inquiry Officer in addition to the Audit and Accounts Officer who was present during the physical verification and also the Manager of the tea estate. The workman also examined himself before the Labour Court. The learned Labour Court by the impugned Award dated 9.12.97, rejected the enquiry report and answered the issue No.l in the negative and against the Management. The learned Labour Court also held that the workman was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and other benefits. In addition, the learned Labour Court held that the Management was not justified in forfeiting the gratuity of the workman which as such was illegal. Hence this petition.

4. Mr. SN Sarma. learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Management, submitted that the learned Labour Court fell into serious error in outright rejecting the domestic enquiry without considering the same in its proper perspective. Mr. Sarma, learned senior counsel submitted that assuming but not admitting the domestic enquiry to be improper, even in that case also, the learned Labour Court ought to have considered the merits of the Management's case s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document