Sajjad Khan vs Employer In Relation To The ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 690 Jhar

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         W.P. (L) No. 4509 of 2009
           Sajjad Khan.                                         ...        ...Petitioner
                                 -Versus-
           1. Employer in relation to the Management of Moonidih Project of
              M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through General Manager, having
              its Office at Moonidih P.O. & P.S. Moonidih, Dist. Dhanbad.
           2. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited through General Manager,
              having its Office at Seraikella, P.O. & P.S. Seraikella, Dist.
              Dhanbad.                                          ...       ...Respondents
                              ------------

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK

(Through Video Conferencing)

For the Petitioner : Mr. M.K.Laik, Sr. Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate.

------------

07/ 12.02.2021 In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case has been taken up

through Video Conferencing. Concerned lawyers have no objection with regard to

the proceeding, which has been held through Video Conferencing today at 10:30

a.m. onwards. They have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and

quality.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the Award dated

25.6.09 passed in Reference Case No 03/97 by the C.G.I.T.No.1 whereby and

whereunder the reference made by the Central Government has been awarded in

favour of the Management.

3. As per factual matrix, the petitioner was appointed in the year 1992 as Fitter

at Moonidih Project under clause 9.4.2. under NCWA after death of his father Akbar

Khan, who was a permanent employee in Sijua Area in the Office of M/s B.C.C.L.

After joining the service, the petitioner was charge-sheeted for submission of fake

certificate, resulting, suspension in Feb., 1992. On the basis of the charge-sheet issued

against the petitioner a purported departmental proceeding was initiated and in that

course the petitioner had made a request to Enquiry Officer to get the matter enquired

into by the Joint Secretary, Vigilance, Bihar School Examination Board but the

Management did not do the same in spite of fact that the Enquiry Officer had suggested

the Management to get the matter enquired into by the Vigilance. The petitioner was

not given any information to know as to why the Management deferred with the

Enquiry Officer and ultimately petitioner-workman was dismissed from the service

vide letter dated 22/23.7.92. Hence, the petitioner-workman approached the Central

Government and the Central Government vide its order dated 18.12.1996 referred the

following dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. I, Dhanbad for

adjudication:

"Whether the action of the Management of Moonidih Project of M/s B.C.C.L. in dismissing Shri Sajjad Khan from service is justified ? if not, to what relief is the said workman entitled.

4. Upon receipt of notification, notices were issued. Both the parties appeared

and contested their respective cases by filing written statement. Learned C.G.I.T.No. I

,Dhanbad after hearing the parties and perusing the evidences and documents brought

on record, vide its Award dated 25.06.2009 answered the reference in favour of the

Management, holding therein that:

"In view of the discussions made above, I come to the conclusion that the action of the Management of Moonidih Project of M/s BCCL, in dismissing Shri Sajjad Khan from service is justified and hence the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief."

5. Aggrieved by Award dated 25.06.2009, whereby learned C.G.I.T. No.I,

Dhanbad has rejected his claim, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned

Award is illegal, arbitrary and fit to be quashed and set aside. There has been flagrant

violation of principle of natural justice. Without approval of the disciplinary authority

and on perfunctory enquiry proceeding, the Management has dismissed the petitioner-

workman. The Enquiry Officer in his findings on 11.5.92 had suggested the

Management for verification of certificate from Bihar School Examination Board, Patna

but being biased and motivated, Management did not give any heed to the suggestions

made and issued illegal order of dismissal w.e.f. 22/23.7.92. Before the order of

dismissal, no 2nd show-cause notice was given to the workman. No reasonable

opportunity was given to defend his case.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned Counsel appearing

for the respondent-Management submits that at the time of verification of the

educational certificate, it was observed that the matriculation certificate submitted by

the workman was not genuine and the same was a fabricated document. Accordingly, a

charge-sheet dated 27.2.92 was issued and he was kept under suspension during the

pendency of the enquiry. The concerned workman was provided employment as

dependent of his father in the capacity of an apprentice only because he claimed to be a

matriculate and produced the matriculation certificate which was later on proved to be

false and fabricated. It is wrong to suggest that such employment was as per agreement

but was as per the general procedure adopted by the Management keeping in view the

provisions of NCWA. No right exists on any workman to get his dependent son

employed in a public sector undertaking, any rule or agreement made for providing

employment to the dependent becomes null and void as the same is unconstitutional.

The concerned workman had no right to claim for his employment under any provision

of law. The learned Tribunal has rightly passed the Award holding that the concerned

workman is not entitled to any relief.

8. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties,

this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the instant writ

application for the following facts and reasons:

i. the petitioner-workman secured employment on the basis of forged and fabricated mark-sheet and school leaving certificate. ii. the petitioner-workman did not produce original matriculation certificate.

iii. the workman has been given ample opportunity to defend himself.

iv. As the very basis for employment was the matriculation certificate which was found to be forged, no right accrued to the workman- petitioner to get himself employed. Further he could not produce the original matriculation certificate and as such the Tribunal has rightly held that petitioner-workman is not entitled for any relief. v. Even the fairness of enquiry is not under challenge in the instant writ application. There is no allegation of unfair labour practice, victimization etc. in this case before the court below. In absence of the aforesaid allegations, the Labour Court has no power to interfere with the punishment imposed by the Management as Section 11A is not applicable and as such the judgment is fully justified.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of " South Indian Cashew Factories

Workers' Union vrs. Kerala State Cashew Development Corpn. Ltd. & Ors., reported

in (2006) 5 SCC 201 has held that:

"16. The Labour Court had earlier held that the enquiry was properly held and there was no violation of the principles of natural justice and that the findings were not perverse. The vitiating facts found by the Labour Court against the enquiry are erroneous and are liable to be set aside. If the enquiry is fair and proper, in the absence of any allegations of victimization or unfair labour practice, the Labour Court has no power to interfere with the punishment imposed. Section 11-A of the Act gives ample power to the Labour Court to reappraise the evidence adduced in the enquiry and also sit in appeal over the decision of the employer in imposing punishment. Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is only applicable in the case of dismissal or discharge of a workman as clearly mentioned in the section itself. Before the introduction of Section 11-A in Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Workmen 4 this Court held that the Tribunal does not act as a court of appeal and substitute its own judgment for that of the management and that the Tribunal will interfere only when there is want of good faith, victimization, unfair labour practice, etc. on the part of the Management. There is no allegation of unfair labour practice, victimization, etc. in this case. The powers of the Labour Court in the absence of Section 11-A are illustrated by this Court in Workmen v. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd.5 When enquiry was conducted fairly and properly, in the absence of any of the allegations of victimization or mala fides or unfair labour practice, the Labour Court has no power to interfere with the punishment imposed by the management. Since Section 11-A is not applicable, the Labour Court has no power to reappraise the evidence to find out whether the findings of the enquiry officer are correct or not or whether the punishment imposed is adequate or not. Of course, the Labour Court can interfere with the findings if the findings are perverse. But, here there is a clear finding that the findings are not perverse and principles of natural justice were complied with while conducting enquiry."

10. Further in case of " Management of State Bank of India vrs. Smita Sharad

Deshmukh and Anr.", reported in (2017) 4 SCC 75 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held

as under:-

"4. The evidence led by the employee, as rightly appreciated by the Industrial Tribunal, would clearly show that she had the knowledge that the document she produced was a forged one. Therefore, there was no requirement on the part of the Management to establish whether she had known, at the time of submission of the documents, that it was a forged one."

"5. It is a well settled principle that the High Court will not re-appreciate the evidence but will only see whether there is evidence in support of the impugned conclusion. The court has to take the evidence as it stands and its only limited jurisdiction is to examine, whether on the evidence, the conclusion could have been arrived at."

11. This Court is in full agreement with the Award passed by the learned C.G.I.T.,

No.I, Dhanbad and the same requires no interference.

12. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions

and judicial pronouncements, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is

hereby dismissed.

[Dr. S.N.Pathak,J.] P.K.S.