The main legal point established is the interpretation of 'riotous conduct' under the Standing Orders and the proportionality of dismissal to the charges proved.

JUDGMENT :

The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the Award dated 06.07.2010 passed in Reference Case No. 5/2008 whereby the learned Labour Court directed that the workmen who were dismissed from service by the Management of the Petitioner Tea Estate be reinstated and paid 50% of the back wages.

2. The facts involved in the instant proceedings are that on 04.09.2004 at 7.45 AM to 9 PM there were certain obstructions being caused by the delinquent workmen for which the other workmen could not attend their duties within time. It is under such circumstances, on 08.11.2004, the Manager of the Petitioner Tea Estate issued two separate chargesheets against the two delinquent workmen namely Smti Sibani Lagun and Smti Marium Lagun.

3. It appears that pursuant to the said chargesheets being issued, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges levelled against those two delinquent workmen. At this stage, it is relevant to take note of that both the delinquent workmen were charged with the following charges :-

(1) The delinquent workmen tried to forcibly prevent the workers from their normal routine work.

(2) The delinquent workers tried to incite the workers, seriously damaging the peace and order in the Division, and

(3) It was reported by the line chowkidars that the delinquent workmen were entertaining outsiders in the company quarter without any prior permission of the management.

4. During the said domestic enquiry as many as 9 witnesses adduced evidence on behalf of the Management and on behalf of the delinquent workmen, 4 witnesses adduced evidence. Two separate Domestic Enquiry Reports were submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the contents of which are parimateria. From a perusal of the said Domestic Enquiry Reports both dated 18th of February, 2005, it is seen that Charge No. 1 was held to be proved whereas the Charge Nos. 2 and 3 were held not to be proved. As regards Charge No. 1, the learned Enquiry Officer held that from the evidence of the management witnesses, it was found that the delinquent workmen restrained other workers of the Tea Estate from going to their duties on the morning of 04.09.2004 near the Gate of Line No. 8 of Behali Division. On the basis of that, the learned Enquiry Officer came to a finding that the conduct of the delinquent workmen amounted to riotous conduct which is an offence of gross misconduct. Pursuant to the said Enquiry Reports so submitted, both the delinquent workmen were dismissed from service vide similar orders of dismissal dated 27.05.2005.

5. Pursuant thereto, the Government of Assam vide Notification No. GLR. 117/2007/15-A dated 18.02.2008 made a Reference in terms with Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Terms of the Reference so made are enumerated herein under :-

1. Whether the management of Behali Tea Estate is justified by dismissing the services of Smt. Sibani Lagun and Smt. Marium Lagun of Behali Tea Estate or not ?

2. If not, whether they are to be re-instated with their full back wages ?

3. Any other remedy as deem fit and proper ?

6. It appears on record that the Petitioner filed their written statement as well an additional written statement. On behalf of both the delinquent workmen, the Respondent No. 2 herein submitted the written statement. It further appears that the Petitioner adduced evidence and on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 the delinquent workmen had also adduced evidence.

7. It is relevant to take note of that during the midst of the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, the Respondent No. 2 did not participate in the said proceedings as could be seen from a perusal of the Impugned Award itself. The learned Labour Court vide an ex-parte order dated 06.07.2010 answered the reference by holding that the dismissal of the two delinquent workmen by the Petitioner was illegal and that the two delinquent workmen be reinstated by making payment of 50% of the back wages.

8. It further appears that the said Award dated 06.