GAIL INDIA LTD Vs. TARKESHWAR PRASAD KHARAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has assailed the correctness of the Award dated 22nd November, 2005 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal(,,CGIT in short) granting the relief of reinstatement in service without back wages to the respondent despite it having been held that he had obtained employment with the petitioner in the year 1989 as a reserved category candidate by producing a forged caste certificate.

(2.) THE respondent joined the services of the petitioner with effect from 27th November, 1989 as Attendant Grade-III against the post reserved for "Scheduled Tribes". The appointment of the respondent was provisional subject to the verification of the caste certificate dated 11.09.1979 submitted by him. When his said caste certificate, which purported to have been issued by the Office of District Magistrate, Siwan(Bihar), was sent to that office by the petitioner for verification of its authenticity the same was reported to be not genuine. On being informed so, the respondent requested for an opportunity to produce a fresh caste certificate and thereafter he submitted another caste certificate dated 30.08.1994 which also on enquiry from the office of the issuing authority was found to be not a genuine document. Then a letter dated 8th March, 1995 purporting to have been issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Siwan certifying that the second caste certificate dated 30th August, 1994 was a genuine document was also submitted by the respondent to the petitioner but that letter was also found to be a forged document.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the punishment of removal from service awarded to him by his employer the respondent raised an industrial dispute which in due course came to be referred to the CGIT for adjudication. The CGIT after trial did not find any infirmity in the conduct of the enquiry as well as in the findings of the enquiry officer and it concurred with those findings that the caste certificates submitted by the respondent were forged. However, even after coming to that conclusion the CGIT ordered his reinstatement in service by observing as under in its Award:-