Judgment

ASHOK BHAN, J.- Leave granted.

2. Management is in appeal.

3. The respondent workman was working as Senior Dumper Operator under the Management of the appellant. The workman was deputed at Open Cast Mine, West Bokaro on 2-3-1994 during the first shift from 5.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. The respondent left the place of his duty before the end of his shift duty and went to Rajiv Nagar area where Shri Harbans Kumar, Senior Officer (Security), along with a number of security personnel and other workers, was discharging his duties in connection with prevention of unauthorised constructions on the Company's land. The respondent workman along with few others approached Shri Harbans Kumar and shouted at him using abusive language and threatened him with dire consequences in case the unauthorised construction was demolished. The respondent workman, on being asked not to behave in the said manner, assaulted Shri Harbans Kumar with his hands and also resorted to brick batting as a result of which Shri Harbans Kumar and Shri S.P. Yadav sustained injuries on the face and other parts of the body.

4. The appellant Management issued a charge-sheet to the respondent workman whereby he was asked to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him under Clauses 22(18) and 22(5) of the Standing Orders of the Company for the following misconduct:

"(a) leaving work without permission;

(b) indecent, riotous and disorderly behaviour with a superior as well as co-worker."

5. The respondent workman submitted his reply denying all charges brought against him. The Management decided to conduct an enquiry and accordingly appointed Shri Madhusudan Das, Deputy Manager (Personnel) as enquiry officer. The enquiry officer after giving full opportunity to the respondent workman came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against him were established beyond reasonable doubt and submitted his report.

6. The punishing authority after going through the enquiry report and related enquiry papers, satisfied himself that charges levelled against the respondent had been established and recommended the dismissal of the respondent from the Company with immediate effect. The workman was accordingly dismissed on 23-4-1994/25-4-1994.

7. The respondent raised an industrial dispute and Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act"), referred the following dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication:

"THE SCHEDULE

Whether the action of the Management of West Bokaro Collieries of Mis TISCO Ltd., PO Ghatotand, District Hazaribagh in dismissing Shri Ram Pravesh, Ex. Sr. Dumper Operator from the services of the Company w.e.f. 25-4-1994 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

8. The respondent on 3-10-2003, made a statement before the Labour Court that he did not want to challenge the legality, fairness and propriety of the domestic enquiry. On this statement being made, the Labour Court, after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances and the submissions advanced by the counsel for the respondent, held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Management was fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The matter was adjourned to 14-12-2001 for hearing argument on merit.

9. The Industrial Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal passed against the respondent by holding that the Management had failed to substantiate the charges brought against the workman concerned beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, order of dismissal passed against the workman concerned was set aside and he was ordered to be reinstated with 50% back wages.

10. Management, thereafter, filed the writ petition before the High Court which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, aggrieved against which Management filed letters patent appeal which has also been dismissed by the impugned order.

11. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr