The Labour Court must first determine the validity of domestic enquiry before evaluating evidence presented for dismissal in industrial disputes.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the Workman of M/s Koomtai Tea Estate to assail an Award dated 31.12.2010 passed by the learned Labour Court, Dibrugarh in Reference Case no. 10/2007. By the Award dated 31.12.2010, the learned Labour Court, Dibrugarh [‘the Labour Court’, for short] has decided the two issues framed in the Reference notification dated 17.07.2007 in favour of the Management of M/s Koomtai Tea Estate and by deciding the two issues against the petitioner-Workman, the learned Labour Court has held that the Management of M/s Koomtai Tea Estate was justified in dismissing the services of the petitioner-Workman w.e.f. 12.04.2005 and that the petitioner-Workman would not be entitled to the relief of reinstatement or any other relief in lieu thereof. Before the learned Labour Court, the petitioner-Workman was represented by the Secretary, Assam Chah Karmachari Sangha, Golaghat Circle, a registered trade union of Workmen.

2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was a Workman under employment of M/s Koomtai Tea Estate, situate in district of Golaghat, Assam, which is a unit of M/s Badulipar Limited [‘the Company’, for short]. The genesis of the dispute is traceable to a Show Cause Notice dated 20.07.2004 issued by the Senior Manager, M/s Koomtai Tea Estate against [i] Ratul Borah and [ii] Simanta Kotoky, Store Clerk [the petitioner]. In the Show Cause Notice, it was stated that it had come to the notice of the Management of M/s Koomtai Tea Estate that its store of M/s Koomtai Tea Estate, which under the control of the two noticees, was not being maintained properly and there were many items in the store which did not tally with the store ledgers. The Show Cause Notice had further mentioned that there was no good system of receipt and issue of items and their accountability was in a mess. Reference was made to a Letter dated 16.07.2004 issued from the Head Office of the Company to mention that there were discrepancies in connection with chemicals. Reference was also made to an Internal Audit Report dated 28.06.2004 to state that a difference of 31,356 litres in High Speed Diesel [HSD] consumption was detected. By serving the Show Cause Notice, the noticees were asked to explain as to why such discrepancies occurred in the store items/store ledgers which were under their control. The petitioner-noticee as the Store Clerk submitted a written reply on 30.07.2004. The two noticees were further served a Letter on 14.08.2004 informing that on cross-checking of the store ledgers by the Management, discrepancies on issuance of High Speed Diesel [HSD] without requisition on various dates, indicated therein, were found and the noticees were directed to clarify the position on or before 08.08.2004. On receipt of the letter dated 14.08.2004, the petitioner replied in writing on 18.08.2004. It was on 29.11.2004, the Management served a Charge Sheet to the petitioner and Sri Ratul Borah wherein it was stated that on cross-checking of the store ledgers by the Management, it was detected that the petitioner with a mala fide intention of committing theft had misappropriated the Company’s property for personal gain by indulging into alleged offence like misappropriation of High Speed Diesel [HSD] to the extent of 30,691 litres, worth Rs. 6,25,880/-, between the period from 01.04.2003 to 31.07.2004 and indulged in fraudulent activities by manipulating the store ledgers, the requisition slips, etc. It was mentioned that if the alleged offences were proved then the same would b