DECISION ' These are two appeals against the single order of the Labour Court ordering the re-instatement of the respondents on their applications made under section 25-A, I. R. 0, and ordering fresh inquiry against them.
2. The respondents were in the permanent employment of the appellant. They committed some act of misconduct and, therefore, they were charge-sheeted. An inquiry Officer was appointed and a joint inquiry against the respondents and six others was held. 1 he respondents were found guilty and, therefore, they were dismissed from service. They served grievance notice and approached the Labour Court.
3. Evidence was tendered by both parties and the applications were allowed ordering re- instatement of the respondents as well as allowing the appellant to hold fresh inquiry. Before an inquiry could be held the appellant filed appeals in this Tribunal and stay was granted. The earlier order of re-instatement was re-called giving fresh cause of action to the respondents who filed fresh applications. Both the applications were allowed by the Labour Court vide order dated 4th March, 1977. Appeals were filed against those orders which were allowed the case was remanded to the Labour Court for decision on some additional grounds which had been raised before me and had not been dealt with by the Labour Court. It was also ordered that no fresh evidence shall be permitted but the cues would be decided on the basis of the evidence which was already recorded.
4. On remand the learned Presiding Officer heard the arguments and set aside the order of dismissal. He also ordered that it will be open to the appellant to institute fresh inquiry against the respondents by recasting the charge-sheet in order to avoid prejudice.
5. Aggrieved by this, present appeals had been filed.
6. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments 1 am of the view that no exception can be taken to the order which was passed by the learned Presiding Officer. The first ground which found favour with the learned Presiding Officer was that the dismissal of the respondents was based on the charge not stated in the charge-sheet but it was developed during the course of the domestic inquiry, which was admittedly conducted in the absence of the respondents. He gave elaborate reasons in coming to this conclusion. I have also read the charge- sheet as well as the evidence and the misconduct which has been said to have been established and I am in complete agreement with the learned Presiding Officer. The charge-sheet related to the act of willful negligence by leaving the machine unattended, whereas the charge which was said to have been established was with regard to the intentional damage caused by inserting an iron strip in side the squeezing roll of water mangle machine. So it is clear that the punishment which was awarded was not on the basis of the allegations made in the charge-sheet, but on different grounds and this could 4 not be permitted. I agree with the learned Presiding Officer that a case of negligence could not be turned into a case of sabotage and a proper inquiry into the alleged misconduct bad to be held.
7. The other ground which was relied upon by the learned Presiding Officer was that the, Inquiry Officer had found the respondents guilty on the basis of the statements of the co-accused. I have already pointed out that there were six persons besides the respondents against whom the joint inquiry was held. The learned Presiding Officer rightly observed that the finding could not be based on the statements of the co-accused who had made self-exculpatory statements throwing the entire responsibility upon the respondents.
8. The third ground which is given by the learned Presiding Officer is that no reasons were stated by the. Inquiry Officer in coming to the conclusion. This view of the learned Presiding 0 deer is supported by the inquiry report. The Inquiry Officer simply stated that on the basis of the evidence which was recorded the respondents were guilty of misconduct. Indeed. Detailed reasons are not necessary, but it does not mean that no reason should at all be given.
9. Lastly, it was found by the learned Presiding Officer that the second show-cause notice was not served and the respondents were not supplied with the copy of the complaint, although, it was specifically demanded.
10. Considering all the circumstances there seems to be no justification for interfering with the impugned order. In result I dismiss the appeals.