ASJWINKUMAR R PATEL Vs. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these cross-petitions, the employer and the employee have challenged the same award of the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in Reference I.T.(Central) No.4 of 1992. By consent and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, both the petitions were heard together finally and are disposed by this common judgment.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are described as "the employer" and "the workman". By the impugned award dated 13.1.2000, the order terminating the service of the workman has been set aside with the direction to reinstate him on his original post with continuity of service and all the consequential benefits as also with the driection to pay 50% of the backwages and costs of Rs.1,000.00. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the workman was allegedly caught pouring petrol and oil in his scooter on 23.4.1981 while on duty. On the charge of stealing petrol and oil of the company, a criminal case as well as a departmental enquiry was instituted against the workman. The workman was acquitted in the criminal case upon getting benefit of doubt and the departmental proceedings were concluded with the finding that the workman was "actually caught stealing only mobil oil in scooter No.GRE 6500 on 23.4.1981 at about 5.15 a.m. and thus he is guilty of misconduct under Clause 22 (iv) of the company's standing orders." On the basis of that finding, the workman was dismissed and the order of his dismissal was upheld in the departmental appeal. The workman had, therefore, preferred Special Civil Application No.4375 of 1983 in this Court and that petition was rejected on 25.1.1991. The workman then approached the Industrial Tribunal by raising an industrial dispute wherein, after hearing and appreciating the evidence on record, the aforesaid impugned award and order are made.

(3.) It was vehemently argued by Mr.M.R.Bhatt on behalf of the employer that by dismissing Special Civil Application no.4375 of 1983 by a detailed order, this Court had practically negatived all the contentions of the workman and upheld the punishment of dismissal leaving no scope for the Industrial Tribunal to arrive at a different conclusion and make an order of reinstatement. The learned counsel took the Court through the text of the judgment from which the following observations were emphasised:-