MUKU SINGH Vs. EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter has since been assigned to this Bench. It appears from the materials on record that the writ petitioners have challenged the impugned orders of dismissal under reference No. ECL/GM/NA/P-IV (31) 92/3081/623 dated March 3, 1992, and other consequential reliefs.

(2.) It is stated in detail that the petitioners are employees of Gopinathpur Colliery, a Unit of Eastern Coalfields Limited. The petitioner No. 1 is a Fitter Helper and the Petitioner No. 2 is a Clerk and the petitioner No. 3, a Driller. It is alleged that for the first time on March 5, 1992 the petitioners have come to learn that their services have been terminated by the respondent No. 1, Eastern Coal-fields Limited having its registered office at Sanctoria, P.O. Dishergarh, District Burdwan, and is under the appellate jurisdiction of this Court and the same was published in the daily newspaper. It is stated that the dismissal has been made on the basis of the reports and information by the General Manager, Nirsha Area Eastern Coal fields Limited. It is placed on record that a Criminal case has been instituted with the Nirsha Police Station and the same is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. The grievances of the writ petitioners are that the impugned orders of dismissal have been made without following the procedure laid down in the statutory rules and without complying with the principles of natural justice. The impugned orders are alleged to have been made summarily without any departmental enquiry and without affording any opportunity of hearing. The alleged orders are, according to the petitioners, arbitrary, capricious and without jurisdiction.

(3.) The writ petition is opposed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 by filing a comprehensive affidavit-in opposition. The respondents have taken the point of jurisdiction of this Court as no cause of action has arisen as alleged in the writ petition. It is, however, disclosed that the petitioners were posted at Gopinathpur Colliery under Nirsha Area of the respondent No. 1 in the district of Dhanbad within the State of Bihar and the records of the case are also lying in Nirsha Area of the respondent No. 1 and this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and/or entertain the instant writ petition. It has been submitted that the dismissal of the petitioners from the services is justified in view of the circumstances and the petitioners have alternative and efficacious remedy under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is contended that had the matter been referred under Section 10 of the said Act to Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court, the respondent company would be in a position before the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court to adduce evidence to substantiate the charges which have been incorporated in the order of dismissal. It is further submitted that the petitioners are having criminal background and they are treated as criminals and the respondent company was not in a position to hold the enquiry and the orders of dismissal are well justified in view of the facts and circumstances as detailed in the affidavit-in-opposition.