Authority confirmed the same on the guilt of the 2nd respondent, it is not known how the Labour Court came to a conclusion that principles of natural justice are violated. The Labour Court finds that the respondent who is the petitioner herein has not discussed whether the 2nd respondent/petitioner has driven the vehicle on the previous day or not and whether he has noted the defects in the log sheet or not. But, this is not the subject matter of the charge. The charge is that he has attended the garage for duty in an intoxication condition on 06.05.1999 and brought the vehicle for service and that he has assaulted the security guard. The Labour Court also find that the statements made at the time of enquiry and the explanation are contradictory, but, the same was not discussed in the award as to what is contradictory as per Labour Court. The Labour Court also assumes that normally at 5.30 a.m., is not the time for taking liquor, when the respondent adduced evidence and the same is held to be proved. So in view of the above, the finding of the Labour Court that charges are not proved is without any basis. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that the punishment of removal is harsh and disproportionate. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner states that because of grave charges removal itself is an appropriate punishment and though the charges are held to be proved, but I find punishment of removal will be shockingly disproportionate and since the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent agreed that other than removal any other punishment can be imposed instead of remitting the matter to the authorities again at this point of time, the punishment imposed by the Labour Court for deferment of annual increment for two years without cumulative effect is modified to deferment of annual increment for two years with cumulative effect.
