Jharkhand High Court
Lal Chand Gope vs The Employers In Relation To The ... on 11 June, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:15201
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(L) No. 937 of 2025
-------
Lal Chand Gope, aged about 72 years, S/o late Ramdahri Ex.
Employee of Kusunda Area M/s. BCCL posted as Night Guard, at
present, R/o Village Rampur Badhauna, P.O. Narsinhapur, P.S.
Lalganj, District- Azamgarh (U.P.). ... Petitioner
Versus
The Employers in relation to the Management of Kusunda Area
of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O.Kusunda, P.S. Putkee,
district- Dhanbad, through Sri Anoop Kumar Sengupta, son of
Late Abani Kumar Sengupta, Chief General Manager, Kusunda
Area no.VI, BCCL, resident of G.M. Bunglow, P. O. Kusunda, P.S.
Putkee, district- Dhanbad. ... Respondent
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Adv.
: Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, Adv.
: Mrs. Astha, Adv.
-------
CAV on:- 15/04/2025 Pronounced on:- 11/06/2025
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the
petitioner praying therein for quashing the Award dated
10.08.2023 passed by the learned Central Government
Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Ref. no. 280/2000;
where by the learned Tribunal has answered the reference in
favour of the Employers in relation to the Management of
Kusunda Area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited stating
therein that this Tribunal is of considered opinion not to
interfere with the punishment of dismissal from the service
against the concerned workman by the Management based on
finding of the domestic enquiry proceeding contained
(Annexure-13 to this writ petition).
3. The brief facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The
Petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as 'Workman'), was a
Night Guard posted in Industry Colliery against whom a
criminal case under Sections 379/411 I.P.C. was registered in
February, 1994 on the allegation that he was caught stealing
2025:JHHC:15201
one piece of cable by a of CISF personnel. Thereafter,
departmental proceedings were also initiated against him
apart from criminal case, in which ultimately the disciplinary
authority passed an order of dismissal from service of the
workman on 2nd of November, 1994. The workman got
acquitted in the criminal case vide judgment dated 25th of
February, 1999 of Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.
Thereafter, the Union, on his behalf, raised an
industrial dispute (Reference No.280 of 2000) in which
Presiding Officer passed the order in favour of the workman.
Aggrieved of the said award, management of Kusunda Area of
M/s B.C.C.L. filed a Writ Petition being W.P.(L) No.6002 of
2009 which was allowed. Against the said order of Writ Court,
L.P.A was preferred being L.P.A. No. 303 of 2015 wherein the
matter was remitted back to the Writ Court. Thereafter, the
Writ Court in W.P.(L) No. 6002 of 2009 quashed the order of
reinstatement of the workman and remitted the matter to
Tribunal for fresh consideration.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and hearing both the parties, the Tribunal passed the
award dated 10.08.2023 and upheld the findings of the
domestic enquiry proceeding and refused to interfere with the
order of dismissal. Being aggrieved, the present writ
application has been filed.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that learned
Tribunal has not considered the case on point of quantum of
punishment in passing the impugned order and that Section
11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act has not been adhered to
and placed reliance upon Raghubir Singh v. General
Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar1 . He further
submits that the order of learned Tribunal is perverse as it
has not considered the evidence given by the witnesses of the
respondent- authorities and prays that the writ application be
allowed.
(2014)10 SCC 301
2025:JHHC:15201
5. Learned Counsel for the Respondents vehemently
opposes the prayer of Petitioner and also contended that the
award passed by learned Tribunal is according to the
procedure established by law and by following Section 11 A of
the Industrial Disputes Act.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after
going through the Award it appears that the only question
which is to be decided by this Court is as to whether the
Award dated 10.08.2023 passed in Ref.no. 280/2000 by
learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1,
Dhanbad requires interference?
In this regard learned counsel for the Petitioner has
placed reliance upon Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 and on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Raghubir Singh (supra).
7. Before proceeding forward, it would be profitable to refer
to Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is
quoted herein below:
"11A. Powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals
to give appropriate relief in in case of discharge or dismissal of
workmen.-- Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or
dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court,
Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of
the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or
National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of
discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set
aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement
of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks
fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of
any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the
circumstances of the case may require:
Provided that in any proceeding under this section the
Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be,
shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any
fresh evidence in relation to the matter."
From bare perusal of the above quoted provision, it
appears that by virtue of this provision, the Tribunal is
clothed with the power to reappraise the evidence in the
domestic enquiry and satisfy itself whether the said evidence
relied upon by the employer establishes the misconduct
alleged against the workman and if it is found to be
unsatisfactory; it may set aside the order of discharge or
2025:JHHC:15201
dismissal and direct reinstatement or award any lesser
punishment.
8. In the case at hand, the Tribunal has found the
evidence in the domestic enquiry to be satisfactory and it
arrived at this conclusion after affording reasonable
opportunity of hearing to both the parties and on merits of
the reference. As such, this court is not satisfied with the
contention of the Petitioner that Section 11A of the Industrial
Disputes, Act 1947 has not been followed in all its spirit.
Further, the observations made in Raghubir Singh
(supra) upon which learned counsel for the Petitioner has
placed reliance cannot be applied to the fact situation of the
case at hand, for the reason that in aforementioned case the
workman was terminated only due to his unauthorized
absence which was held to be disproportionate to the gravity
of misconduct. Further, in the said case the workman was
terminated without issuing any show cause or initiating any
disciplinary proceeding against him.
However, in the case at hand the workman was a night
guard against whom the charges of theft and pilferage of the
company property have been proved in the enquiry; as such,
it cannot be expected from the management to repose
confidence on a person who was appointed to guard against
theft and pilferage when he himself indulges in such
dishonest activities.
9. Having regard to the above discussion, I have no
hesitation in holding that the Award dated 10.08.2023 passed
in Ref.no. 280/2000 by learned Central Government
Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad does not require any
interference.
10. Accordingly, the writ application stands
dismissed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Fahim/-
