NAPUK TEA ESTATE Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails the Award dated 02.05.2005, passed by the Labour Court of Assam at Dibrugarh in Reference Case No. 17/2000. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court held that the petitioner was not justified in dismissing the workman (whose cause is espoused by respondent No. 3 herein). The workman was directed to be reinstated forthwith with all back wages with a rider that he should not be kept as a Head Store Clerk, which post the workman was holding at the time of his termination and further providing that he should be posted in any other department in same grade and scale of pay.

(2.) The Government of Assam vide Notification dated 25.09.2000 had referred an industrial dispute between the Management of Napuk Tea Estate and the Secretary, Assam Chah Karmachari Sangha, Sonari Circle for adjudication of the following issues:-

(3.) The relevant facts may be noticed at this stage: The petitioner is a Tea Estate and the workman Sandip Baruah, while working as Stores Clerk, was issued a show-cause-cum-charge-sheet dated 10.12.1999 on the allegation that he along with Shri Jayanta Handique, who was working as 2nd Stores Clerk, had received huge quantity of various stores items worth Rs. 6.2 lakhs during a period covering last 15 months but had not prepared any Local Purchase Order (LPO) against receipt of those items and thus committing acts of gross misconduct according to Standing Order of the company, which if proved, may result in termination of service. By the said show-cause notice-cum-charge-sheet, the workman was required to show-cause within 7 days of receipt of the notice as to why disciplinary action under Standing Order 10(a)(3), 10(b)(3) should not be taken against him. Similar notice was also issued to the 2nd Stores Clerk, namely, Jayanta Handique.