The subjective satisfaction of the Inquiry Officer is crucial, and the Labour Court cannot re-appreciate evidence like a first appeal. Dismissal is not a disproportionate punishment in cases of theft or misappropriation.

D.N. Patel, J.

This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner, who preferred W.P. (L) No. 2185 of 2010. The said writ petition was preferred, challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No. 23 of 1997 dated 19.12.2009. The Labour Court, Jamshedpur, while passing the award, had set aside the order of dismissal, passed by the disciplinary authority and the workman was ordered to be reinstated with 50% back wages and continuity in service. This award was challenged in the writ petition, which having; been dismissed, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

2. FACTUAL MATRIX

Respondent was working as a Pharmacist in the hospital owned, managed, controlled and run by this appellant.

On 15.05.1992, when the general shift duty of the respondent was completed and he was going out of the gate of this appellant, as a routine checking, the scooter of the respondent-workman was checked and it was found that he was carrying unauthorizedly 30 tablets of Voveran, 80 tablets of Norflox and 1200 gm Bleaching Powder.

On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, charge-sheet was issued to this respondent-delinquent on 01.06.1992 by the Senior Consultant. Post of Senior Consultant is much higher post than the post of Pharmacist. Charge-sheet is at Annexure-l to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal.

Committee of Inquiry Officer was appointed consisting of two members. Several witnesses were examined. Several documentary evidences were also placed during the Course of departmental inquiry. Medicines and bleaching powder, which were found during course of search of scooter of this respondent, were also produced. Adequate opportunity of being heard was also given to the respondent-delinquent.

On the basis of the evidence before the Inquiry Officer, report was given on 03.05.1993 (Annexure-2 to-the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal) and the charges levelled against the respondent- delinquent were held as proved.

Industrial dispute was raised under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 by the respondent-workman and ultimately, reference was made by the appropriate Government being Reference Case No. 23 of 1997 before the Labour Court, Jamshedpur.

During course of hearing before the Labour Court, Jamshedpur, preliminary objection was raised by the workman about legality and validity of the domestic inquiry.

Separate order was passed by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur, which is at Annexure-5 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal, wherein, it was held that the departmental inquiry was legal and valid. This order is dated 23.06.2004.

When the Labour Court, Jamshedpur decided the Reference Case No. 23 of 1997, it came to the conclusion that the findings of the Inquiry Officer requires to be altered. Labour Court, Jamshedpur held that on the basis of the evidences on record, it cannot be said that the charges are proved. By re-appreciation of the evidences on record, it was concluded by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur that finding of the Inquiry Officer requires alteration and the order of reinstatement with 50% back wages was passed on 19.12.2009 (Award is at Annexure-6 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal).

Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the award, passed by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur, appellant-management preferred writ petition being W.P. (L) No. 2185 of 2010, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 23.06.2010 and being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the aforesaid judgment and order, present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner.

3. Arguments canvassed by the counsel for the appellant:

Counsel for the appellant has submitted that once departmental inquiry is held as legal and valid by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur and adequate opportunity of being heard was also being given during the domestic inquiry and when evidences were led during domestic inquiry and when there wa