JUDGMENT :

I.A. No. 527 of 2020:

1. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 99 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal.

2. No counter affidavit to the delay condonation application has been filed.

3. Heard the parties.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the statements made in this application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in preferring this appeal within time.

5. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay of 99 days in preferring this appeal, is hereby condoned.

6. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard at this stage for final disposal.

L.P.A. No. 42 of 2020:

7. The instant appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 03.09.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (L) No. 4314 of 2001, whereby and whereunder, while dismissing the writ petition the award dated 24.04.2001 passed in Reference Case No. 14 of 1997 has been refused to be interfered with.

8. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which require to be enumerated herein, read as under:

The respondent was a store-keeper and was transferred on the said capacity to the Blast Furnace Relining Store on 09.07.1991 and on 11.07.1991, the respondent joined but his predecessor Mr. S.S. Prasad had not handed over the charge of the Store to him.

On 12.07.1991, the respondent took leave and continued to be on leave till 14.07.1991 and on 15.07.1991, he resumed the duty in the aforesaid store and reported of non-handing over charge to the Superior Officer, namely, Sri Pradeep Sahay. On 16.07.1991, the respondent-workman found discrepancy in the Store and accordingly due information has been given to the Superior Officer, namely, Sri Pradeep Sahay, who asked him to prepare a report. Accordingly, a report was prepared and submitted vide report dated 18.07.1991 to the Superior Officer that about 40 numbers of bearing are missing.

On such report, the respondent has been charged vide memo of charge dated 12.08.1991. The respondent has been charged for not performing supervision and care, which resulted in loss of companies’ property. The charge has been found to be proved basis upon which the respondent had been terminated from service w.e.f. 01.09.1992.

The respondent-workman, being aggrieved with the order of termination, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 161/1992 for declaration that order of discharge was illegal and arbitrary but the suit was dismissed and thereafter, a dispute was raised on 04.01.1996 which has been referred vide order dated 05.11.1996 as Reference Case No. 14/97. The terms of reference is as follows:

“Whether the termination of services of Sri R.S.Singh, Store Keeper Balast Furnace, Relying Store, Ticket No. 209119, P.No. 47214, M/s Tisco Limited, Jamshedpur is proper? If not, relief the workman is entitled to?”

The workman has not contested regarding the fairness of the enquiry process rather the case has been contested on merit.

The respondent had taken the ground that the allegation levelled regarding dereliction in duty cannot be said to be proved conclusively in absence of the examination of Mr. S.S.Prasad and Mr. Pradeep Sahay to whom the respondent-workman has reported about the missing of 40 numbers of bearing.

Further, on the ground of proportionality, the issue has also been raised and the learned Labour Court while exercising its power conferred under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has passed the award answering the terms of reference in favour of the respondent by holding the order of termination to be unjustified with a direction of reinstatement with back wages alongwith consequential benefits except the back wages from 01.09.1992 to 04.01.1996 (submission of statement of demand).

The management, the writ petitioner, appellant herein, has challenged the said award by filing writ petition being W.P. (L)