EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE SOUTH KUJAMA COLLIERY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for issue of an appropriate writ under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution for quashing an Award passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad (Respondent No. 1) dated the 21st July 1962, and published in the Gazette of India on the 11th August 1962. The petitioners are the Employers in relation to the South Kujama Colliery under whom Ram Dayal Singh (Respondent No. 2) was serving as a Pump Attendant. The dispute referred by the Central Government under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for adjudication by the Tribunal was: "Whether the dismissal of Shri Ram Dayal Singh, Pump Attendant, by the management of South Kujama Colliery of M/s. Bagdiggi Kujama Collieries Co. (1946) Ltd., was justified? if not, to what relief is he entitled?"

(2.) The circumstances under which the above reference to the Tribunal was made are briefly as follows: On the 2nd November 1961, Sri D.V. Manak, the Director of the South Kujama Colliery, paid a surprise visit to the Mine and found that Ram Dayal Singh (Respondent No. 2), the Pump Attendant on duty at a 62 H.P. Pump, was sleeping while on duty. Thereupon the Director asked the Manager of the Colliery to draw up a proceeding against the said Pump Attendant. Accordingly, on the same day, the Manager served a chargesheet upon Ram Dayal Singh calling upon him to show cause within 48 hours why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for his misconduct, namely, sleeping while on duty. In his show cause petition to the Manager, Ram Dayal Singh denied that he was sleeping on duty, as alleged, and he further said that the chargesheet issued against him was intended to harass him because on the 29th October 1961, he had complained to the Inspector of Mines about certain irregularities on the part of the Management. A managerial inquiry was held on the 8th November 1961, and as a result thereof Ram Dayal Singh was found guilty of misconduct and dismissed with effect from the 3rd November 1961. In the order of dismissal served upon him, it was mentioned that sleeping on duty is a violation of the Standing Orders and violation of the Coal Mines Regulations. It was in this context that the reference of title dispute was made to the Tribunal on the 15th January, 1962.

(3.) Upon the materials produced before it, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that Ram Dayal Singh was sleeping while on duty on the 2nd November 1961 and that the misconduct with which he was charged had been established. On the question of the punishment awarded by the Management, the Tribunal, however, took the view that its interference was called for inasmuch as the punishment of dismissal was excessive and discriminatory and amounted to unfair labour practice. In coming to the conclusion that the dismissal of Ram Dayal Singh was unjustified, the Tribunal took note of three circumstances; (i) that for the same misconduct committed by two other Pump Khalasis only a few days earlier, the Company had merely warned them, (ii) that Ram Dayal Singh had a clean record of service for ten years, which the Management did not take into consideration while inflicting the extreme punishment of dismissal to him, & (iii) that it had been clearly established from the independent evidence of Shri M. L. Mukherjee, Inspector of Mines, that Ram Dayal Singh had complained to him only a few days before about certain illegal practices of the Management which had resulted in certain notices being served upon the Management by the Mines Department. The said Inspector of Mines had also deposed before the Tribunal that while conveying information to him, Ram Dayal Singh had requested him not to disclose to the Management that it was he who had informed him about the illegal practices of the Management because Ram Dayal Singh was afraid that he would be victimised by the Management. In the result, the Tribunal directed that Ram Dayal Singh should be reinstated in his former post of Pump Khalasi, but for the period from the date of his dismissal until the date of his re-instatement, he would be treated as on leave without pay, so that he might have the benefit of continuity of service.