The main legal point established is that the termination of service must be based on a fair inquiry and acceptance of guilt by the worker. The award of back wages should be supported by evidence of the worker not being gainfully employed during the period he was out of service.

JUDGMENT :

Amareshwar Sahay, J.

1. The writ petitioner, i.e. the Management of Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant has challenged the impugned award dated 18/12/2002, pronounced on 22/01/2003 by the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City in Reference Case No. 6/1998, whereby the Labour Court has held that the termination of the service of Respondent No. 2 by the petitioner is improper and unjustified and, thereby directed for his reinstatement with 60% back wages with all other consequential reliefs.

2. In short, the case of the prosecution, are that the respondent No. 2, i.e. the concerned workman was in the service of the petitioner since 27/01/1983 as a Gangman in the traffic department. On the allegations that he was an habitual absentee, he was charge sheeted on 12/04/1991 for remaining unauthorizedly absent from duty w.e.f. 06/03/1991. The charges levelled against him were for willful or habitual absence from duties without sufficient cause and negligence of duty but he was let off after giving warning on 30/04/1991. Thereafter, he was again charge sheeted on 14/10/1993 for similar charge, i.e. for willful unauthorized absence but this time he was awarded punishment by bringing him to the minimum of his pay scale by order dated 10/09/1994.

According to the petitioner, in spite of the aforesaid major punishment, the workman did not reform himself and continued absenting unauthorizedly from duty and, as such, he was again charge sheeted on 12/11/1994 vide Annexure-2. An Inquiry Committee was constituted to inquire into the charges against him. It is stated that the concerned workman, i.e. respondent No. 2 participated in the inquiry proceeding and during the proceeding, he accepted the charges levelled against him and he gave in writing to show mercy and assured that he would not repeat such type of misconduct in future. The Inquiry committee found the charges against the respondent No. 2 established vide Annexure-4. The disciplinary authority, on consideration of inquiry report as well as the past conduct of the workman, inflicted penalty of dismissal from service and, accordingly, the concerned workman was dismissed from the service of the petitioner's company vide order dated 02/02/1995, contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition.

3. The concerned workman raised industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court for determination as to whether the termination of services of the concerned workman by the Management was proper and if not what relief he was entitled to.

The concerned workman appeared and filed his written statement. The Labour Court vide order dated 12/02/2001 held that the domestic inquiry held against the concerned workman was not fair and proper and, thereafter, took evidence. The concerned workman himself appeared as a witness before the Labour Court and on behalf of the Management one witness was examined and, thereafter, by the impugned award dated 18/12/2002, pronounced on 22/01/2003, the Labour Court held the termination of the service of the concerned respondent by the petitioner's company to be improper and unjustified and, thereby, directed to reinstate the concerned workman in service with 60% back wages with all other consequential reliefs.

4. Mr. Ananda Sen, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the concerned workman was a habitual absentee and he accepted the misconduct and, therefore, considering his past conduct, there was no other alternative than to dismiss him from service. He further submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman and MD V.S.P. and Others Vs. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu, (2008) 5 SCC 569 almost in similar case where the employee was habitual absentee and in answer to the charges pleaded guilty admitting the charges, held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in this regard is rather limited. Its power to interfere with disciplinary matter is circumscribed by will-known factors. It cannot set aside a well reasoned order