JUDGMENT :

S.N. Pathak, J.

Since both the writ petitions are arising out of same impugned Award dated 20.08.2018 passed in Reference Case No.01/2013, these are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

Prayer in W.P. (L) No. 3152 of 2020

2. The petitioner-Management has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the impugned Award dated 20.08.2018 passed in Reference Case. No. 01/2013 (Annexure-13) by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder, he has been pleased to set aside the order of dismissal and consequently, petitioner-Management was directed to reinstate the workman without back wages. Further, prayer has been made for quashing of order dated 24.03.2017 passed in Reference Case No.01/2013, by which the petitioner-Management was given liberty to raise the issue while assailing the interim order dated 24.03.2017 in writ petition being W.P. (L) No.3043 of 2017 vide order dated 11.04.2019.

Prayer in W.P.(L) No.1154 of 2019

3. The petitioner, who is the workman, has approached this Court with a prayer in the nature of certiorari to modify the impugned Award dated 20.08.2018 passed in Reference Case No. 01/2013 to the extent that reinstatement of workman be made with full back wages along with interest and other benefits. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to reinstate the workman/petitioner to his original place of working at Jamshedpur.

4. The factual matrix as has been narrated in W.P. (L) No. 3152 of 2020 is that the respondent-workman was employee of the petitioner-Management having P.No.0871 and at the relevant time he was employed as Junior Associate. On 1st January, 2012, the packets of sweets were being distributed among the employees of the Management as the Company had touched a new height in terms of production, but the workman-respondent along with one Ranjit Singh instigated the co-employees not to take packets as quality of sweets were not good and asked them to return the same. Pursuant to which, other employees did not collect the packets. Thereafter, the distribution of packets were stalled. After an hour, the respondent-workman along with his colleagues arranged pastries from outside and distributed the same among the employees. It is further the case of the petitioner-Management that when this act of the workman-respondent came to the notice of the petitioner-management, a charge sheet was issued to workman on 12.01.2012 and was asked to submit an explanation within 72 hours. Pursuant thereto, the workman has submitted his explanation to the General Manager (Operation and Sales) on 16.01.2012, and stated that concocted story has been made and the allegations levelled against him are false. However, the reply of the petitioner was not accepted and as such, Management had decided to held a domestic enquiry in relation to the charges levelled against the workman and one Mr. A.N. Sinha (Advocate) was appointed as Enquiry Officer. It is further the case of the petitioner that Enquiry Officer held enquiry on 20.03.2012 and in that enquiry one Mr. S. Mazumdar, representative of Management and workman were present. Thereafter, enquiry was concluded and Enquiry Officer on 18.05.2012 submitted its report to the General Manager (Operation & Sales) wherein, workman was held guilty of the charges as contained in Ext. M. (Annexre5). Accordingly, the workman was dismissed from service by the petitioner management vide order dated 03.09.2012. Thereafter, the workman-respondent raised the dispute before the Competent Authority and the same was referred to Labour Court, Jamshedpur relating to dismissal of the workman with the following terms:

"(i) Whether, dismissal from service of Sri Kripa Shankar Tiwari, Ex. P. No.0871, Workman, M/s Tata Steel Processing and Distributing Limited, Bara, Agrico, Jamshedpur is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to ?"

Upon receipt of the same, the learned Labour Court registered the case as Ref. No. 01 of 2