NITYANANDA PANIGRAHI Vs. GENERAL MANAGER MINES TATA IRON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The award dated 21.9.2000 (Annexure -5) passed by the Presiding officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela in I.D. Case No. 37/97(C) is assailed in this case. According to the petitioner he Was an employee under opposite party No. 1 and his services were illegally terminated with effect from 20.5.1992. He raised an industrial dispute and conciliation having failed, Government of India in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of power conferred under Clause (d) of Sub -section (1) and Sub -section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act referred the following dispute to the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela for adjudication : whether the action of the management of M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Co, Ltd., Dist. : Keonjhar in dismissing Sri Nityananda Panigrahi, P. No. 92154 vide letter dt. 20.5.92 was justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner -workman in course of his service a domestic enquiry was conducted against him on several frivolous allegations. Though he raised objection, the management paid no heed to the same. The said enquiry was conducted in an illegal manner without following the principles of natural justice and equity and without affording him opportunity to defend himself, and culminated in his dismissal from service with effect form 21.5.1992. The workman has prayed that the order of his dismissal from service being illegal the same might be quashed and the management might be directed to reinstate him in service with full back wages. The management, at the other hand, strongly repudiated the averments of the workman. According to it, the conduct of the petitioner was deplorable. Charges were properly framed against the workman, a domestic enquiry was conducted in consonance with the Standing Order and Rules of the management, enough opportunity was given to the workman to defend himself and after following the principles of natural justice and conducting the enquiry in a most fair and legal way ultimately the order of dismissal was passed. It was emphatically submitted that the impugned order was just and proper and any submission to the contrary were unfounded.

(3.) MR . Das, learned Counsel appearing for the workman, forcefully submitted that the Tribunal lacked initial Jurisdiction to question the reference made to it. According to him, the Tribunal could not go into validity of the said reference. The Union of India having exercised its power under Clause (d) of Sub -section (1) of Section 10 of the I.D. Act referred the dispute to the Tribunal, it was incumbent upon the latter to decide the same. Thus the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal was unjust and contrary to law. The second contention of Mr. Das is that the aforesaid Memorandum of Settlement dated 23.8.1976 though was binding on the workman, the same had spent its force in course of time and the Agreement dated 11.9.1989 could not extend the provisions of Clause 25 of the Memorandum of Settlement, According to Mr. Das, the Tribunal acted illegally and with material irregularity in holding that no reference could be made under Section 10 -A of I.D. Act.