Vague misconduct charge and unframed theft allegation cannot sustain dismissal; recovery must follow due process.

A dismissal based on missing materials could not be sustained where no specific charge of theft was framed in the show-cause notice, enquiry report, or dismissal order. A theft finding is a serious character allegation and cannot be inferred from a vague charge or an enquiry that goes beyond the pleadings. The Labour Court erred in treating the matter as theft despite the record showing only a demand for recovery of loss, which at most gave rise to civil recovery subject to due process. On that basis, the dismissal was held unsustainable and reinstatement with backwages, continuity of service, and attendant benefits followed, while any recovery had to proceed in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dismissal based on the domestic enquiry could be sustained when no specific charge of theft was framed and the workman was held liable only for recovery of the missing materials, and whether the impugned award refusing relief was liable to be set aside.

Analysis: The materials before the management and the enquiry proceedings showed only a demand to make good the loss caused by missing coils and a grievance about the workman approaching the police and the union. No specific charge of theft was framed in the show-cause notice, enquiry report, or dismissal order. A finding of theft is a serious allegation affecting character and cannot be inferred without a clear charge and proper enquiry. The Labour Court travelled beyond the pleadings and the enquiry findings and treated the matter as theft, which was unsupported by the record. The alleged loss of goods, at the highest, gave rise to a civil liability for recovery, and even such recovery required compliance with the procedure and opportunity contemplated under the law. Since the charge was vague and the finding was perverse, the dismissal could not stand and the question of proportionality of punishment did not arise.

Conclusion: The dismissal was unsustainable, the award was liable to be set aside, and the workman was entitled to reinstatement with backwages, continuity of service, and attendant benefits. Recovery of the loss, if any, could be pursued only in accordance with due process.

---