IMPORTANT POINT
The Labour Court should consider the dispute on its merits and not solely focus on the violation of natural justice. Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 allows the Labour Court to set aside unjustified dismissal and direct reinstatement.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. U. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent no.1 and Ms. A. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the Award dated 09.08.2016 passed by the learned Labour Court, Dibrugarh in Reference Case No.5/2013, by which the petitioner was found to be not justified in dismissing the service of the respondent no.2 and was found to be entitled for reinstatement in service within 30 days from the date of the Award. Further, the period from the date of dismissal till his reinstatement was directed be treated as leave without pay and should count towards the length of service.

3. Brief facts essential for disposal of the instant writ petition is that according to the petitioner, the respondent no.2 on 30.05.2012 drove the school bus of the Management bearing registration no. AS-03/7483 in a most negligent manner causing it to dash against the main gate of the factory and grievously injuring the gate security personnel, who later succumbed to his injuries. Due to this, the Senior Manager of the petitioner company filed Charge-sheet dated 12.06.2012 against the respondent no.2 charging him for disrupting the normal working of the factory as well as the Manager’s office for more than 2 hours with malafide intention, in addition causing the death of Late Basu Keot and that the said act if proved, would amount to gross misconduct on the part of the respondent no.2 as per clause 10(a)(1), clause 10(a)(10) and clause 10(a)(11) of the Standing Orders in force in the estate. A written explanation was therefore sought from the respondent no.2 as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him and he was suspended from duties with immediate effect until further orders.

4. The respondent no.2 submitted his representation on 15.06.2012 denying the charges stating that he performed his duty sincerely and diligently and there was no intention on his part to harm the normal work of the factory and prayed to condone his action. However, not being satisfied the petitioner served notice of inquiry to the respondent no.2 on 30.06.2012 intimating the date, time and venue of the proposed inquiry proceedings and also asked the respondent no.2 to submit his list of witnesses. Thereafter vide letter dated 08.10.2012 the respondent no.2 was intimated that a domestic inquiry was fixed for 30.10.2012 at the Garden Office of the Manager at 10:30 a.m. and one Mr. M.R. Barooah, Advocate, Jorhat would be the Inquiry Officer.

5. According to the petitioner, the inquiry was initiated by the Inquiry Officer, wherein two Observers were present from the side of the petitioner throughout the proceedings and the respondent no.2 was personally present as well. All the charges were explained to him in Assamese and he denied the same. The respondent no.2 also admitted receiving a copy of the Charge-sheet, list of witnesses prior to the inquiry and he brought one witness in support of his defence. On behalf of the Management Sri Siddhartha Chetia Pator, Sri Rupam Handique and Sri Baljit Singh Shekhon were examined as MW-1, MW-2 & MW-3 respectively. The respondent no.2 declined cross-examination the said witnesses and in his defence, he examined himself and his colleague Aman Karmakar. During the cross-examination of Sri Aman Karmakar, he gave a different story saying that the bus had a brake failure and because of which, he was shouting along with the driver. As per respondent no.2, he was totally silent about the theory of brake failure. The Motor Vehicle Inspector Report exhibited as Exhibit5 also did not disclose anything about the brake failure and instead certified that mechanically, the bus was in a roadworthy condition.

6. The Inquiry Officer after considering all the materials available came to the conclusion vide his report dated 15.11.2012 that the charges levelled against the respo