GRAPHITE INDIA LIMITED Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is at the instance of Graphite India Ltd. and it is directed against the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court whereby he discharged the Rule Nisi obtained by the appellant company challenging the propriety of the award of the 9th Industrial Tribunal, Durgapur. By the said award, the learned Tribunal reinstated the respondent no. 4 Ratan Chandra Das Gupta in his post with effect from the date of his dismissal with all back wages.

(2.) THE respondent no. 4 was at all material time an Inspector in the Production Control Department of the appellant company. On July 3, 1971 a charge-sheet was served upon him by the management inter alia to the following effect: (1)On 2. 7. 71 he had been asked by the Supervisor of the department to sample 102x132x861 mm. size Anode, 'but instead of acting according to the instructions of the supervisor he straightway refused to carry out according to the instructions in spite of several verbal and written warnings, (2)On 26. 6. 71 while he was handed over a letter by Sri J. K. Agarwal he, after going through the contents of the letter straightway refused to accept the same. Both these acts constituted major misconduct under the Model standing Orders.

(3.) THE respondent no. 4 was suspended pending further enquiry into the charges leveled against him. One Sri bagla Prasanna Bhattaa, a Labour Officer of the appellant company was appointed the Enquiry Officer. As to the charge no. 1 the defense of the respondent no. 4 was inter alia that the sampling job of the Anode in question could be done only with two helpers or by two Inspectors and one helper. As two helpers were not" provided to him he could not do the job. Regarding the charge no. 2, it was alleged by him that he did not refuse to accept the letter but said to Sri J. K. Agarwal that he would accept the same after having a talk with the Manager. The case of the appellant company was that the sampling job of the type of the Anode mentioned in charge no. 1 could be done with only one helper or by two Inspectors. It was also alleged that the respondent no. 4 refused to accept the letter of warning mentioned in charge no. 2. So far as charge no. 1 was concerned, evidence was adduced on both sides to prove their respective cases. The appellant company examined four witnesses while she respondent no. 4 examined six witnesses. On the question, whether the sampling job as referred to in charge no. 1 required two helpers or not, another witness, namely, A. K. Das Gupta was examined by the Enquiry Officer out. if his own. The said A. K. Das Gupta was alleged to have done the sampling job of the Anode in question with only one helper. It appears that the respondent no. 4 was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the said A. K. Das Gupta. The Enquiry Officer placed reliance on the evidence of the said A. K. Das Gupta and came to the finding that the job could be done by only one Helper and as the respondent no. 4 ad refused to do the work with one helper, he was found guilty of the charge. The Enquiry Officer also found the respondent no. 4 guilty of the charge no. 2. The Resident Director of the appellant company concurred with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and found the respondent no. 4 guilty of the charges and by his order dated September 21, 1971 dismissed him from the service of the appellant company with immediate effect.