JUDGMENT 1. - This is a writ petition directed against the order dated 3.5.1975 passed by the Labour Court, Jaipur whereby the domestic inquiry held against the petitioner was held to be fair and proper and the Award dated 24th March, 1979 passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Jaipur holding the termination of the services of the petitioner was also held to be legal and valid and that the applicant was not entitled to any relief. 2. The petitioner was employed with the respondent No.2 M/s. Jaipur Spinning and Weaving Mills, Jaipur as Godown Clerk on 7.1.64 by the General Manager of the aforesaid mills. The petitioner was served with the charge-sheet and after the inquiry he was dismissed from the service of the aforesaid mills by order dated 28th December, 1970 passed by the Factory Manager. This order dated 28th December, 1970 has been placed on record of this writ petition as Ex.4. The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur and the same was dismissed on the ground that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to dispose of the s,-me. After the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of maintainability, the petitioner sent a notice for demand of justice to respondent No.2 on 2nd June, 1973 and thereafter he filed an application for conciliation before the Conciliation Officer. After a failure report sent by the Conciliation Officer to the Government, the Government of Rajasthan vide letter dated 11th September, 1974 referred the dispute under Section 10(i)(g) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the Labour Court, Rajasthan, Jaipur. The Labour Court passed the order on 3rd May, 1975 holding the domestic inquiry to be fair and proper and thereafter passed the Award dated 24th March, 1979 holding that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief and the termination of the services of the petitioner was legal and valid. 3. The petitioner has alleged that he had not been afforded a reasonable opportunity in the domestic inquiry because only 24 hours time was granted to him for filing reply to the charge sheet and the documents asked for by him were not made available to him despite his demand. 3. The petitioner has alleged that he had not been afforded a reasonable opportunity in the domestic inquiry because only 24 hours time was granted to him for filing reply to the charge sheet and the documents asked for by him were not made available to him despite his demand. It has also been argued that the petitioner had been appointed by the General Manager but the order of dismissal was passed by the Factory Manager who is an authority subordinate to the General Manager. On behalf of the petitioner it has also been argued in the first instance that the charges were wrongly held to be proved against him and the inquiry stands vitiated as the reasonable opportunity was not afforded to him, the documents asked tor were not made available to him and in the alternative it was also argued that linking to the nature of the charges the extreme punishment of dismissal was excessive and disproportionate and it is hardly a case in which he could be dismissed from service. With reference to the ground No. E taken in the Writ Petition, the counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Judge, Labour Court has committed an illegality in holding the charges against the petitioner to be proved and in holding that the charges were of serious nature and the punishment of dismissal was not held to be excessive. It was submitted that the petitioner's case was not considered on merits by the Labour Court and a mere look at the charges will show that the same were not of such a nature so as to warrant the petitioner's dismissal from the service. The counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the submissions made in para 5 of the writ petition wherein it has been stated that the petitioner had filed a detailed affidavit before the Labour Court on or about 19th February, 1975 in which it was specifically stated that the order of dismissal had been passed by Shri R.K. Gupta, Factory Manager, which was illegal on the ground that it was passed by a lower authority than the appointing authority because the petitioner had been appointed by the General Manager and the Factory Manager was an authority subordinate to the General Manager. A copy of this affidavit was also shown to me by the counsel for the petitioner from her own file and in para 5 of this affidavit the point that the petitioner had been appointed by the General Manager and yet he had been dismissed by the Factory Manager who had no authority to dismiss the petitioner has been specifically taken. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that in this view of the matter the finding of the Labour Court that this objection was not raised in the statement of claim or in the evidence and it was raised for the first time during the arguments is absolutely wrong and this finding suffers from the error apparent on the fact of the record. 4. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents, nor there is any reply to the writ petition in the court file. Although the domestic inquiry held against the petitioner was held to be fair and proper by the Judge, Labour Court vide its order dated 3rd May, 1975, I have my own reservations as to whether in a case when only 24 hours time was granted for the purpose of filing the reply to the charge-sheet, it can be said that an effective reasonable opportunity was given in such matters. The insufficient time itself causes serious prejudice and no further prejudice is required to be shown. So far as the ground that the documents asked for were not made available, the same has been explained with reference to the Factory Manager's letter dated 23rd October, 1970 asking the petitioner to apply for the copies of the documents to the Inquiry Officer and the further mention in the order dated 3rd May, 1975 that the petitioner did not apply for copies to the Inquiry Officer still the Inquiry Officer had shown all the required documents to him. That may be so and even if the charges as were framed against the petitioner are found to be proved, having gone through the nature of the charges which have been mentioned in the order Ex.4 I am more than convinced that all or any of these charges, even if taken to be proved, did not warrant the extreme penalty of dismissal from service. The charges which were levelled against the petitioner are as under: "Charge No.1 - That on 20th August, 1970, you were absent from duty but dishonestly to obtain the payment for 20.8.70, you knowingly marked your attendance in the attendance register. "Charge No.2 - That on 1st September, 1970, your duty was in night shift but you knowingly went at the ring weighment at 7.OOA.M. with the intention of quarrelling and quarrelled with Shri Girish Chandra Saini, who was on duty and abused him and told him 'TUM KAY GAND MARANE YAHAN AAYE HO YAHAN SE BHAG JAO. "Charge No.3 - That you forcibly tried to v..work in the morning shift on 1.9.70. Charge No.4-That you marked your attendance, in the attendance register inspite of the fact that you were in the morning shift on 1.9.70. "Charge No.5 - That on 2nd September, 1970, you went at the gate and after pushing Watchman, went in the time office and marked your attendance in the attendance register while your duty was in third shift." 5. A bare look at these charges would show that in the case of employees of the lower strata, as the petitioner was, such charges are routine and they cannot be said to be ,o serious so as to precipitate extreme and grave punishment of dismissal from service. Even consideration of all the charges of anyone of the charges in such cases order of punishment cannot be said to be reasonable which may render the petitioner to be jobless and any order of punishment short of depriving him of the job would in my considered opinion be enough to meet the ends of justice. It also appears that although the order of.punishment Ex. 4 was an order dismissing the petitioner from service, the Judge Labour Court has taken it to be an order of termination only. In any case, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am fully convinced that the punishment of the dismissal from service against the petitioner was highly excessive and disproportionate and as I have already held any punishment short of an order rendering the petitioner to be jobless would have been sufficient. In any case, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am fully convinced that the punishment of the dismissal from service against the petitioner was highly excessive and disproportionate and as I have already held any punishment short of an order rendering the petitioner to be jobless would have been sufficient. Consequently the finding of the Judge, Labour Court in the impugned Award dated 24th March, 1979 that the objection regarding the issue of the dismissal order by the Factory Manager had not been taken either in the statement of claim or in the evidence certainly suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record in as much as in such matters the affidavit filed by the parties from the part of evidence and the affidavit to which reference has been made in para 5 of the writ petition the plea that only General Manager could pass the order against the petitioner and the order could not be passed by the Factory Manager who was subordinate to the General Manager but in the instant case the impugned order of the termination was passed by the Factory Manager was taken. This finding recorded by the Judge, Labour Court is, there- fore, wholly oblivious of the material which was available in the record of the Labour Court as a part and parcel of the evidence and I find that this grievance of the petitioner which should have been considered by the Judge, Labour Court has been left un adjudicated and thus the impugned Award suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record and it also suffers from the vice of non-ad-judication of the legitimate grievance which the petitioner had duly raised and which ought to have been considered by the Judge, Labour Court. 6. In this view of the matter, the net result of the above discussion is that the impugned Award dated 24th March, 1979 passed by the Judge, Labour Court against the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is hereby quashed and set aside and consequently the dismissal order passed against the petitioner which is placed on record as Ex. 4 dated 28.12.70 also cannot be sustained in the eye of law and same is quashed and set aside. 4 dated 28.12.70 also cannot be sustained in the eye of law and same is quashed and set aside. So far as the question of giving relief to the petitioner regarding reinstatement and back wages to the petitioner is concerned, I have been informed at this stage after dictating the above order that the company-respondent No. 2 has gone under liquidation since 1981 and an official liquidator has been appointed. In these circumstances, there is no question of now giving the relief of reinstatement to the petitioner. So far as the payment of back wages from the date of dismissal till the date the company went under liquidation is concerned, it is ordered that in case the petitioner files an affidavit before the official liquidator that the petitioner was unemployed and did not remain in any gainful employment from the date of dismissal till the date the company went under liquidation, the official liquidator would record him a creditor of the company in respect of the amount which the official liquidator may determine and would disburse the amount in accordance with law to the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. No order as to costs.Writ Petition allowed. *******