Shrimati Sonamayee vs M/S Tisco Ltd
2025 Latest Caselaw 1177 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Shrimati Sonamayee vs M/S Tisco Ltd on 28 July, 2025

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

                                                                  2025:JHHC:20934



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
             W.P.(L) No. 2939 of 2009
                           -------

Shrimati Sonamayee, W/o Chanu Soy, residing at Harhar Guddu, P.O. & P.S. Bagbera, District-Singbhum (East).

..... Petitioner Versus M/s TISCO Ltd., Jamshdpur, P.O. & P.S. Jamshedpur, District- Singbhum (East), Jharkhand. ..... Respondent

-------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

-------

For the Petitioner : M/s. M.M.Pal, Sr. Adv For the Respondents: Mr. G.M. Mishra, Adv Mr. J.N.Upadhyay, Adv

-------

CAV On 03.07.2025 Pronounced on:28/7/2025

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for

quashing and setting-aside the Award dated 18.09.2008 passed

by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in

Reference Case No. 14 of 1995; whereby the termination of

services of the petitioner has been held to be valid and justified.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was

appointed in the company as a Reja (Ex-T. No. 207885, P. No.

121737) in the Material Handling Services (MHS) Department

on the basis of alleged succession to the services of one late Sri

Budhu, who was an erstwhile employee of TISCO Ltd.

It was subsequently alleged that the petitioner had

fraudulently secured employment by impersonating herself as

2025:JHHC:20934

the daughter of late Budhu (P. No. 14689) and submitting a

false affidavit during the pre-registration process.

On verification, it was found that the petitioner's actual

identity is Smt. Shurkuni, daughter of Ghurkunda Bhumij, and

that she had no familial relation whatsoever with late Budhu.

Treating such impersonation for securing employment as

misconduct under Clause 23 of certified standing order of the

company, chargesheet No. MHS/H/2353/80-C dated

29.08.1991 was issued by the Divisional Manager MHS, service

department.

After receiving an unsatisfactory explanation from the

petitioner on 02.09.1991, the management instituted a

domestic enquiry, appointed an Enquiry Officer and

Management Representative, and conducted proceedings as per

procedure.

The Enquiry Officer submitted his findings and held the

petitioner guilty of serious misconduct. The petitioner was

granted opportunity to respond to the proposed punishment.

Upon consideration, the Disciplinary Authority discharged her

from service with effect from 26.06.1992.

4. Thereafter, a reference was made to the Labour Court,

and by an Award dated 18.09.2008, the Labour Court upheld

2025:JHHC:20934

the validity of the termination and found that the domestic

enquiry had been conducted fairly. Aggrieved by the decision,

the petitioner has preferred the present writ application.

5. It has been submitted by Ld. Sr. Counsel for the petitioner

that the entire domestic enquiry was in contravention of the

principles of natural justice, having been conducted in a pre-

determined manner.

It has also been submitted that the disciplinary action

initiated by the Divisional Manager (MHS) was not the

competent authority. The petitioner claims that as per Board

Resolution only the Managing Director was authorized to take

disciplinary action, and such power could not be further

delegated.

Ld. Sr. Counsel further contended that the charges were

premised solely on the complaint of one Sri Shailendra Mahto,

M.P., who was not examined in the proceedings. The petitioner

was denied the right of cross-examination, and later, Sri Mahto

also withdrew his complaint affirming that the petitioner was

indeed the daughter of late Budhu which was a crucial fact

ignored by the Enquiry Officer and the Labour Court.

It has also been contended that the Labour Court's

findings are perverse and based on no evidence. No attempt

2025:JHHC:20934

was made to examine the alleged impersonator or any

independent witnesses. Moreover, procedural lapses vitiate the

very foundation of the enquiry.

Ld. Sr. Counsel lastly submits that the impugned Award

suffers from errors of law and fact and is liable to be quashed,

being arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent has

submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable either on

facts or in law. The petitioner impersonated herself as

Sonamayee, daughter of late Budhu, and obtained employment

fraudulently.

Pursuant to the complaint received, due enquiry was

initiated which was fair and proper. The petitioner was given

adequate opportunity to present her case, cross-examine

witnesses, and submit evidence. The Enquiry Officer, upon

considering all relevant material, concluded that the petitioner

is in fact the daughter of Ghurkunda Bhumij and not of late

Budhu as claimed. The misconduct of impersonation is serious

in nature under the standing orders of the company.

He further contended that prior to discharge, the

petitioner was issued second show-cause notice dated

03.06.1992, and her explanation dated 08.06.1992 was

2025:JHHC:20934

considered before passing the final order on 26.06.1992.

7. Respondents further assert that the Divisional Manager

(MHS), being the Head of Department, was competent and duly

authorized under the company's delegation of powers to issue

chargesheet and pass the discharge order.

Accordingly, it has been submitted by the counsel for the

Respondent-Company that the Labour Court, after

comprehensive examination of the oral and documentary

evidence, found the enquiry to be fair and the punishment to be

proportionate. The findings being reasoned and evidence-based,

no interference is warranted.

8. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after

going through the Award, this Court proceeds to examine

whether the order of dismissal of the Petitioner, Smt.

Sonamayee, from the services of the Respondent Company,

TISCO Ltd., is sustainable in the eye of law.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged on the

strength of her claim as successor to her father, late Budhu, an

ex-employee of TISCO Ltd. The management's main allegation

is that the petitioner is not, in truth, Budhu's daughter, and

that she fraudulently secured appointment by impersonation

and submitting false documents. The foundation of the

2025:JHHC:20934

impugned dismissal order is thus alleged serious misconduct,

warranting disciplinary proceedings. Upon issuance of the

chargesheet, a domestic enquiry was conducted wherein the

management asserts due compliance with the requirements of

natural justice, affording the petitioner an opportunity to

participate and offer her defence. Based on the findings of the

enquiry, and after considering her response, the petitioner was

discharge from service.

9. The Labour Court has, upon detailed consideration of the

both sides, had concluded that management of M/S TISCO Ltd,

was able to prove that Divisional Manager (MHS) was

competent and authorised to issue chargesheet and as such the

Enquiry officer Mr. Shishir Sinha was also competent to hold

an enquiry in this matter. The relevant para is quoted herein

below:

"13.........from perusal of para 11 of the Ext. M/8 found it is evident that that power regarding disciplinary action has been conferred to the Managing Director and Managing Director was emplowered to delegate the same power to any officer of the company and the Managing Director, Mr. R.H. Mody, had delegated the power by executing deed dated 25.11.1976 in favour of General Manager (operation), (Security) and Director of Finance and Accounts and Industrial Relations and they were empowered to suspend an employee from duty, pending inquiry and an employee who has been charged with misconduct and to dismiss an employee in accordance with rule. And in the present case is in hand from perusal of Ext. M, I find that Mr K.K. Mangal General Manager (works)) had issued office order dated 19.9.1991 and appointed Shri Shishir Sinha an Enquiry Officer and also nominated Mr. S. Nath as management representative and thereafter Ext. M/3-b,M/3-c, Ext. M/3- d,M/3-e were issued to the chargesheeted workman intimating the chargesheeted workman to be present in the enquiry and these notices were received by the

2025:JHHC:20934

chargesheeted workman and except the above from perusal of Ext. M/7 it is evident that powers were delegated to the executive of the rank of Chief Electrical Engineer, Chief Mechanical Engineer and equivalent, and heads of the department were also empowered to exercise the abovementioned power including the power to issue chargesheet in the matter of misconduct and to dismiss an employee in accordance with rule and from perusal of Ext. M/1 I find that chargesheet dated 29.8.91 was issued by the Divisional Manager of material handling services department and he was the head of the department and was competent to issue the chargesheet and he was also competent and authorised to issue letter dated 3.6.1992 asking the explanation from the charge-sheeted workman on the proposed punishment and he was also competent to issue letter dated 26.6.92 discharging the service of the charge sheeted Workman........"

10. Moreover, in departmental proceeding, five witnesses were

examined on behalf of the management i.e. witness no. 1, Smt.

Soni, who is daughter-in-law of late Budhu, Witness No. 2 -

Smt. Sonamayee (real daughter of late Budhu), Witness no. 3 -

Ram Dularey, Witness no. 4 - Lakhan and Witness no.5 -

Rashraj, and the photograph of Smt. Sonamayee, the daughter

of late Budhu was also brought on record. These witnesses had

corroborated that the charge sheeted workman is not the real

daughter of the ex-workman and her real name is Smt.

Shurkuni.

11. In the case of Amrit Vanaspati Co. Ltd. v. Khem

Chand1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, citing its earlier decision

in Workmen v. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P)

Ltd.2, observed that once an employer has conducted a proper

inquiry and the finding of misconduct is a plausible conclusion

(2006) 6 SCC 325

1973) 1 SCC 813

2025:JHHC:20934

based on the evidence presented, the Tribunal does not possess

jurisdiction to act as an appellate body over the employer's

decision. Interference is warranted only if the inquiry's findings

are perverse, or if the management is found to have engaged in

victimization, unfair labour practices, or acted with mala fide

intention.

12. In the instant case, the Labour Court had also affirmed

the departmental proceedings as fair and just. Consistent with

these principles, this Court concludes that the departmental

proceedings in the present matter were conducted fairly and

impartially, and the findings arrived at are neither arbitrary nor

perverse.

13. The Petitioner has relied upon the judgment of

Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Ors. V. Jai Bhagwan3,

and Indian Aluminium Company, Ltd. v. Labour Court4, in

respect to the requirements of natural justice and procedural

fairness. Its direct relevance to the present facts is limited. In

the instant case, as detailed in the impugned Award, the

Labour Court has specifically found that the Enquiry Officer

followed due procedure and that the Divisional Manager was

competent to initiate disciplinary action under the company's

standing orders. The Labour Court's findings are based on

(2011) 6 SCC 376

1990 SCC Online Pat 354

2025:JHHC:20934

detailed evidence and analysis, and the procedural steps taken

by the management were found to satisfy the principles of

natural justice in the given circumstances.

14. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to interfere with

the findings arrived at by the learned Labour Court and as such

the writ petition is dismissed. Pending I.A if any also stands

disposed of.

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

Amardeep/ AFR/