ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI)

Sri.Subrahmanya., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.B.C.Prabhakar., for the petitioner, and Sri.L.Muralidhar Peshwa., learned counsel for the respondent appeared in person.

2. The short facts are these:

The petitioner is a Textile Manufacturing Industry engaged in the manufacture of silk fabrics and allied products. The service conditions of the workman working in the petitioner factory are governed by the certified standing orders of the Company. The respondent - Jagadeesh.D.R was working as an Operator in the petitioner's Company. It is stated that he had indulged in various acts of misconduct on various dates commencing from 13.07.2005 to 14.11.2005. Therefore, he was served with a charge sheet dated 19.11.2005 leveling the following charges against him.

(a)Insubordination or disobedience whether alone or in combination with others to lawful and reasonable orders of superiors.

(b)Absence from the workplace during hours.

(c)Theft, fraud, or dishonesty in connection with the business or property of the company or co- workers' property whether inside or outside the premises of the company.

(d)Habitual breach in Law applicable to the establishment or rule of the establishment or any Standing Orders.

(e)Gross negligence or habitual neglect of work or interference with the work of others.

(f)Deliberate slowing down of work or inciting, intimidating, or forcing others to slow down work.

(g)Refusal to accept any charge sheet, notice, suspension letter, warning letter, show cause notice, or any other communication offered for service by the company.

(h)Wrongful restraint or wrongful confinement of any Officer of the Company, surrounding or forcibly detaining Officers or other workman in the premises of the establishment or outside the establishment.

(i) Slow down or inciting workman to slow down in performance of work.

(j)Tampering or sabotage of company's property.

(k)Loitering inside the premises of the company after or before authorized hours of work.

The respondent refused to receive the charge sheet when it was tendered to him, hence, it was displayed on the Notice Board. Despite displaying on the Notice Board, the respondent did not choose to submit his explanation. Therefore, the disciplinary authority ordered for conduct domestic inquiry by appointing an inquiry officer to inquire into the charges leveled against him. The inquiry officer conducted a full-fledged inquiry by affording full opportunity to the respondent to defend the charges leveled against him. Before the inquiry officer, as many as three witnesses were examined as MW1 to MW3. However, on behalf of the defense, no witness was examined. The respondent did not give his statement before the inquiry officer. After the conclusion of the inquiry, the inquiry officer submitted his report and finding on 12.06.2006 holding that the charges leveled against him are proved and established. He was furnished with a copy of the report and finding of the inquiry officer along with the Memo dated:20.06.2006 calling upon him to make his submissions if any on the finding of the inquiry officer and on the proposed punishment of dismissal from the services of the Company for the proved misconduct. In turn, the respondent sent his representation contesting the finding of the inquiry officer and alleging that the inquiry was conducted in a biased manner without providing him reasonable opportunity to defend the charges. The disciplinary authority after considering the representation dated 17.06.2006, concluded that there is no merit in the allegations made by the respondent against the inquiry officer and hence, rejected the allegations made by the respondent. Taking note of the magnitude of the proven misconduct against the respondent, the disciplinary authority passed the order on 27.06.2006 dismissing the respondent from the services of the Company. Since the common dispute in respect of the workmen was pending before the Industrial Tribunal,