Jharkhand High Court
General Manager vs Their Workman Being Represented ... on 12 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(L) No.790 of 2016
----
General Manager, Western Washery Zone of M/s BCCL, Dhanbad
through Sri Gautam Kundu, General Manager ...... Petitioner
Versus
Their workman being represented by the Organising Secretary,
Rashtriya Colliery Mazoor Sangh, Rajendra Path, Dhanbad. . ..... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Petitioner : M/s A.K. Mehta & Amit Kr. Sinha, Advocates
For the Respondent : Ms. Archana Kumari Singh, Amicus Curiae
---------
th
08/Dated: 12 December, 2022
Heard the parties.
Present writ petition has been filed for quashing the Award dated 31.12.2014
passed in Reference No.138 of 2001 by learned Presiding Officer, Central Govt.
Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad whereby the order of punishment of demotion has
been set aside with all consequential benefits.
From the arguments and the pleadings of the parties, it appears that the concerned
three workmen were the employee under the petitioner-Company. They have been
charged on 21.06.1997 for making wrong attendance of late Ram Pujan Bhuia.
It appears that said Ram Pujan Bhuia has died on 24.10.1996 but his attendance
has been marked for five days even after the death in the month of Nov., 1996 to April
1997.
On the strength of the charge sheet, domestic enquiry has been conducted and
Enquiry Officer has submitted his report on 23.02.1998, holding that the charges
levelled against concerned workmen stand proved. Accordingly, final order of demotion
has been passed.
The order of demotion has been challenged by raising industrial dispute which has
been referred vide order dated 30.04.2001 being Reference No.138 of 2001. The terms
of the reference is quoted hereinbelow:
"Whether the action of the Management of M/s BCCL in
demoting S/Sh. N.N. Pandey, Hazrat Ali Ansari and S.K.
Bhattacharjee from their previous grades is justified and
proportionate to the offence, if any, committed by them? If not, to
what reliefs are the workmen concerned entitled?"
It appears that the finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that the charges
stand proved but the punishment is highly disproportionate and accordingly, the order of
punishment has been set aside meaning thereby that concerned workmen remain
unpunished even the charges have been found proved.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once learned Tribunal has
found that the domestic enquiry is fair and proper and the charges stand proved, the
Tribunal has no power to interfere with the punishment as imposed.
Now issue has already been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
South Indian Cashew Factories Worker's Union Vs. Kerala State Cashew
Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2006)5 SCC 201 especially in
para-16, wherein it has been held that Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act is only
applicable in the case of dismissal or discharge from the service and not with regard to
other punishment and as such, learned Tribunal has no power to pass such order.
On the other hand learned Amicus Curiae has supported the Award and it has
been submitted that learned Tribunal can interfere with the order of punishment
considering the nature of charge.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it
appears that the concerned workmen have been charged for making false attendance of
a dead person. The allegation stands proved in the domestic enquiry and it has been
upheld by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has interfered with the punishment considering it
highly disproportionate to the charges and the order of punishment has been set aside,
even though guilt has been accepted by the Tribunal.
It is well settled law that the Tribunal can interfere only when there is want of
good faith, victimisation, unfair labour practice etc. on the part of the management and
not otherwise. Since Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable, the
Tribunal has no power to reappraise the evidence or to correct the punishment imposed.
The Hon'ble Apex Court has also settled the issue that only in the case of
cessation of service, the power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act is
available.
In view of the above discussion and the considering the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of South Indian Cashew Factories Worker's Union (Supra), the
impugned Award dated 31.12.2014 is hereby set aside.
This writ petition stands allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Ravi/-
