Point of Law: High Court can modify punishment in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution only it finds that punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to charges proved.

JUDGMENT :

The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 27.12.2010 passed by the learned Labour Court, Dibrugarh in Reference Case No.1/2009 whereby the learned Labour Court decided the Reference Case by upholding the decision of the Management of Borjan Tea Estate to dismiss the delinquent workman.

2. The facts involved in the instant case as would appear from the perusal of the writ petition as well as the LCR are that one Shri Badan Gogoi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘delinquent workman’) was a Store Clerk w.e.f. 01.04.2001. On 01.04.2007, one Sri Rana Raruah joined the post of the Manager of Borjan Tea Estate. It reveals from the records that after joining, the said Manager received information from the Head Office that there were some irregularities in respect to the sale of scrap of Borjan Tea Estate. Accordingly, he held an enquiry. During the course of enquiry, the delinquent workman who was also the Store Clerk was called and upon him, various enquiries were made as regards certain sale of scrap on 21.02.2007 by the then Manager and Assistant Manager of Borjan Tea Estate. During the said course of enquiry, the purchaser of the scrap one Sri Dasarath Shaw was also enquired into who admitted purchase of scrap as well as payment of Rs.75,000/-in lieu thereof. Upon the preliminary enquiry being done, the Manager of Borjan Tea Estate, being not satisfied with the explanation so given by the delinquent workman, issued a show cause notice to him on 13.08.2007 alleging inter-alia that the delinquent workman had collected an amount of Rs.75,000/-from Sri Dasarath Shaw as the proceed of the scrap sale but had deposited only an amount of Rs.1,932/-with the Head Clerk. It was alleged in the said show cause notice that the said delinquent workman has been sending out Company’s property from the factory premises under his signature without the knowledge of the Management. Further to that, seven more instances were mentioned in the said show cause notice whereby there were sale of scrap, but the entire amount of the sale was not deposited. It is under such circumstances, the delinquent workman was asked to submit a written explanation as to why action should not be taken, taking into account that the delinquent workman had committed a serious offence under Clause 10 (A) (2) of the Standing Orders. The delinquent workman was also suspended on the basis of the said show cause notice. It further appears that the delinquent workman submitted a detail reply on 20.08.2007.

3. From a perusal of the said reply, it is clear that there is no denial that the delinquent workman received the amount from the said Dasarath Shaw totaling to Rs.75,000/-as well as the delinquent workman had only deposited an amount of Rs.1,932/-before the Head Clerk against the sale of the scrap. However, it is the specific case of the delinquent workman that the sale amount of Rs,75,000/-was given to the then Manger of the Tea Estate who handed it over to the Factory Manager and the Factory Manager gave him an amount of Rs.1,932/-to be deposited before the Head Clerk. The Management of the Tea Estate in question having found that the reply submitted by the delinquent workman was not satisfactory initiated a proceedings by appointing an Enquiry Officer. In the said Enquiry Proceedings, the Management adduced evidence of 5 witnesses. However, the delinquent workman did not adduce any evidence. The Enquiry Officer, on the basis of the documents as well as the evidence on record, framed nine points for consideration. It is, however, relevant to take note of that in the said enquiry proceedings, the delinquent workman did not raise any issue as regards non-receipt of the list of witnesses as well as also had taken any steps for calling the then Manager whom the delinquent workman alleged had misappropriate the amount of Rs.73,068/-.

4. Be that as it may, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 05.01.2008 whereby it was opined that the delinqu