4.So far as the conclusion of unfair labour practice itself is
concerned, both courts below have come to a concurrent finding of fact
that the misconduct alleged by the Respondent was not proved. What
has mainly weighed with the courts below and particularly, the
Industrial Court in revision, was the fact that though the Respondent
was supervising the work of the three workmen working inside the tank,
there was no proof that the tap was opened by the Respondent so as to
let hot sugarcane juice inside the tank. Indeed, there is no evidence by
anyone that the Petitioner was responsible for starting the tap, which
was the gravamen of the charge against him. So far as back wages are
concerned, the Industrial Court, in revision, observed that whilst
ordering 30% of back wages, the Labour Court had not given cogent
reasons, which could be justified in law. The Industrial Court noted
that, accordingly, it was of the view that an interference was called for.
Considering that at the time of arguments, the Respondent herein had
communicated to the court that he did not wish to join back the services
of the Petitioner, as the relationship of employer and employee between
the parties had become practically dead and instead monetary relief
should be offered to him, the Industrial Court was of the view that whilst
