JUDGMENT

R. K. PATRA, J. — The management has filed this writ petition challenging the award dated 19.3.1996 (Annexure-1) in Industrial Dispute Case No. 134 of 1990 declaring that the termi¬nation of employment of opposite party No.3 is not legal and directing his reinstantment in service without any back wages.

2. Opposite party No.3 while serving as Clerk Grade-B, Machine House Department was charge-sheeted on the allegation that although he was absent on four dates, he put his initial by erasing the relevant entries and in the over-time slip of Machine House dated 26.3.1983 he falsely indicated to have worked over-time for eight hours. He was found guilty of the charges and by order dated 4.10.1983 his services were terminated which led to the reference being made to the Labour Court for adjudication of the disputes.

3. The terms of the reference read as follows :

“Whether the termination of employment of Sri Niranjan Jena, Clerk Grade ‘B’ Machine House Department with effect from 1.10.1983 by the management of Titaghur Paper Mills Company Ltd., No.3 Mill, Choudwar is legal and/or justified. If not, to what relief is Shri Jena entitled ?”

4. The case of opposite party No.3 before the Labour Court was that although he submitted reply denying the charges, the management persuaded him to submit a confession letter with undertaking that he would not repeat such lapses in future. The management assured him that the enquiry was just a formal one and he would not be punished.

The case of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that after receipt of charge-sheet, opposite party No.3 submitted explanation admitting his guilt. The enquiry was held on 22.4.1983 and 23.4.1983 in which he stated that he had already admitted the charges in his explanation. Basing on the enquiry proceeding and the enquiry report, the management issued notice to the workman to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The workman-opposite party No.3 did not submit his explanation to the second show cause notice. After considering the gravity of the misconduct, the impugned punishment was im¬posed.

5. In course of the enquiry, two witnesses were examined on behalf of the workman and one witness was examined on behalf of the management who supported their respective cases. The Labour Court has held that the opposite party No.3 failed to establish that the confession of guilt was made by him on being persuaded by the management. The Labour Court has observed as follows :

“....At the time of framing charges the second party workman made his confession. Subsequently when the enquiry was held the second party workman reiterated his confession before the Enquiry Officer.”

In view of such admission, the Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry was merely an empty formality. In this connec¬tion, it placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Karunamoy Banerjee, AIR 1968 S.C. 266 wherein it has been held that if the workman admits his guilt, to insist upon the management to let in evidence about the allegations will only be an empty formality. In such a case, it will be open to the management to examine the workman himself, even in the first instance, so as to enable him to offer any explanation for his conduct, or to place before the management any circumstances which will go to mitigate the gravity of the offence. The Labour Court held that the management witness de¬posed that opposite party No.3 got the wage for four different dates for which he tempered the attendance register to mark himself present. In the circumstances, having regard to the above evidence, the Labour Court recorded the finding that the termina¬tion of employment of opposite party No.3 cannot be said to be illegal and unjustified. After recording such a finding in favour of the management in paragraph 7 of the award, the Labour Court held that the punishment of retrenchment is harsh and accordingly it directed reinstatemen