CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2016) 05 GAU CK 0098

Pulak Borthakur vs Management of Dufflating Tea Estate

Gauhati High Court · Decided on 16 May 2016 · Citation: (2016) 4 GauLR 543

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mr. Ajit Singh, C.J. and Mr. Suman Shyam, J.
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
WA No. 18 of 2016

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 315 words

Ajit Singh, C.J.- Heard on admission.

2.

This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 19.8.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby he has dismissed appellant�s WP(C) No.1855/2008 and affirmed the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal.

3.

The appellant is espousing the cause of Pulak Chandra Borthakur of the Dufflating Tea Estate. Pulak Chandra Borthakur was serving as Garden Clerk under Dufflating Tea Estate. He was dismissed from service on 6.11.2001 after domestic enquiry by the management. The charges framed against him were of misappropriation of amount and that paid excessive wages to different employees by making false entries in the record. An industrial dispute was raised by the Trade Union which was referred for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh. The Tribunal vide award dated 29.6.2007 upheld the dismissal of Pulak Chandra Borthakur. Aggrieved, Pulak Chandra Borthakur filed WP(C) No.1855/2008 which the learned Single Judge has dismissed by the impugned order.

4.

At no stage, Pulak Chandra Borthakur could show that domestic enquiry was improper or charges against him were not proved or findings regarding charges were perverse. The Tribunal as well as learned Single Judge have therefore rightly upheld the dismissal of Pulak Chandra Borthakur. The findings arrived at by the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge are well-founded and unassailable.

5.

Learned counsel for the appellant has mainly argued that penalty of dismissal imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the charges framed. This argument has already been dealt with by learned Single Judge in paragraph 16 of the impugned order.

6.

Having regard to the systematic pilferage or misappropriation from the wage bill of the workers committed by the appellant, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the penalty imposed is just and proper. No ground for interference is made out. The appeal is dismissed summarily.