JUDGMENT
S.K. Mahajan, J.
1. Rule.
2. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of
by this order.
3. Petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar w.e.f. 2.7.1980. Alleging that on 11/12.9.1985 when the petitioner was discharging his duty as Chowkidar, theft of government property costing about Rs. 15,000/- had taken place in the subdivision of the respondent, the same was alleged to have been caused due to gross negligence and misconduct of the petitioner and another Chowkidar. After holding a departmental enquiry, the services of the petitioner and other chowkidar were terminated by the respondents. The petitioner and the other chowkidar raised an industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court with the following terms of reference: –
“Whether the termination of service of S/Shri Mahender Pal Singh and Mahabir Singh is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect? ”
4. One of the points taken before the Labour Court by the petitioner was that they had not been served with any charge-sheet nor any reply to the said charge-sheet was called for from them and consequently any enquiry held by the respondents into the charges levelled by the said charge-sheet was vitiated and the order of removal passed by the respondents on the basis of such enquiry was liable to be quashed. In reply to this plea of the petitioner, the respondents in their written statement submitted that the charge-sheet was duly pasted on the notice board as per Section 27(4)(d) of the Standing Orders. It was submitted by the respondent-Management that since the charge-sheet has been pasted on the notice board, there was no need to serve the same upon the petitioners nor there was any requirement to seek any reply to the same from the workman. The Labour Court on these submissions held that no prejudice was caused to the petitioners by not serving the charge-sheet upon them or by not calling for their reply and after holding that the enquiry was held fairly and properly, the Labour Court passed a no-dispute award, which has now been challenged by the petitioner by filing the present petition.
5. One of the points argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Section 27(4) (d) of the certified Standing Orders applicable in this case only a minor punishment could he imposed upon the workman. It is submitted that after issuing charge-sheet under Standing Order 27(4)(a), the respondents could not hold an enquiry for major penalty as the same was clearly beyond the provisions of Standing Order 27(4)(d) of the Standing Orders. Standing Order 27(4}(d) of the Standing Orders reads as under: –
“Censure or warning notice shall be given to the workman in writing by the employer or by officers whose names are given on the notice board and the workman shall Be given appropriate time for replying for the in- . discipline done by him and in his defense the workman shall have to produce witnesses.”
6. A plain reading of Clause (d) of Standing Order 27(4) shows that it applies only in a case where the management proposes to impose the penalty of censure or warning and that also could be imposed by the employer only after opportunity was given to the workman to submit his reply. After pasting the charge-sheet on the notice board for minor penalty, the respondents, in my view, could not take action to impose major penalty without following the procedure as laid down in the Standing Orders. Procedure to be followed by the Management in cases where it proposes to impose major penalty is prescribed in Standing Order 25. It is admitted case of the parties that procedure prescribed in Standing Order 25 was not followed by the Management. No opportunity having been given to the petitioners to file reply to the charge-sheet nor any charge-sheet having been given for major penalty, in my view, the entire enquiry proceedings conducted by the respondents on the basis of the said charge-sheet stand vitiated and the respondents could not take action on the basis of the report of the said enquiry by removing the petitioner from service. The Labour Court has clearly ignored the provisions of Standing Orders 25 and 27(4)(d) and its award, in my opinion, cannot be sustained. I, accordingly, make the rule absolute and quash the impugned award and direct reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and full back wages.