LAWS(MPH)-2013-12-107

PRAYAG MODI Vs. SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LTD.

Decided On December 06, 2013
Prayag Modi Appellant
V/S
SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though titled as petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petition, in substance, is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India directed against the order dated 10.5.2013 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur; whereby, an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short '1947 Act') filed by respondent-management of Western Coalfields Limited (WCL) in a pending dispute seeking express permission to terminate the services of the petitioner having found guilty of misconduct in a departmental enquiry, was allowed.

(2.) That, a dispute has been raised by the petitioner in respect of his promotion forming subject matter of Reference No.218/99 before the CGIT-cum-Labour Court. During pendency whereof, the petitioner employed as Head-Clerk in Nandan Mine No.2 of WCL, Kanhan Area, was charge-sheeted on 23.1.2001 for a gross misconduct, under Clauses 26.1 and 26.22 of the Certified Standing Order i.e. for theft, fraud, dishonesty with the company's business or property and willful and deliberate act which is subversive of discipline or which may be detrimental to the interests of the Company. The imputations were that the petitioner did not properly check the LLTC form of Shri Ishanoo S/o Tukdoo, Hauglage Khalasi, Token No.543- consequently, twice LLTC amount was paid. That, in the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty of charges, leading to passing of the order-dated 19.12.2001, terminating his services. That since the dispute in respect of promotion was pending, an express permission vide application under Section 33(2)(b) of the 1947 Act was being sought.

(3.) The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur, after affording due opportunity to both the parties, vide impugned order-dated 10.5.2013, granted permission to the Management of WCL for termination of services of the petitioner. The Tribunal observed : -