SADANAND MUKHERIEE AND OTHERS Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is for quashing an award dated the 28th Dec., 1964, made in Reference No. 12 of 1963 (Annexure C to the application) by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad (respondent No. 1) holding that the dismissal of the petitioners was legal, proper and justified, and, therefore, they were entitled to no relief.

(2.) An industrial dispute existing between respondent No. 2, namely, the employers in relation to Dhemo Main Colliery, in the district of Burdwan and their workmen in respect of the dismissal of nine workmen as specified in the schedule to the order dated the 28th Jan., 1963, made by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, was referred for adjudication to the Central Government, Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad. The Tribunal, while setting aside the dismissal of one of those nine workmen, namely, one Biranchi a sand cleaner, on the ground that he was neither served with a charge-sheet nor the enquiry in his regard was fair and proper, has on a consideration of all the relevant materials including the findings at the domestic enquiry came to the conclusion that the said domestic enquiry in so far as the petitioners are concerned was fair and proper and was in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and that the findings of the enquiring officer were by no means perverse. The Tribunal has further pointed out that the only allegation made in the written statement filed on behalf of the workmen challenging the domestic enquiry was contained in paragraph 25 thereof, in which it was said that while conducting the enquiry the Management grossly and wantonly violated the principles of natural justice and that the enquiry had been held by the very officer who was in charge of imposing punishment. Nevertheless, it has discussed at length the various objections to the domestic enquiry as were raised on behalf of the learned advocate who appeared for the workmen and has come to the conclusion that in its opinion there was no substance in any of those objections. It has further alluded to certain circumstances which clearly, in its opinion, established that the finding reached by the enquiring officer in regard to the petitioners were fully justified and the charges levelled against them were established. On these findings, as mentioned earlier, the dismissal of the petitioners has been held to be legal, proper and justified.

(3.) It is now well settled by several decisions of the Supreme Court that the Management have the power to direct their own internal administration and discipline and in references regarding dismissals of workmen the Tribunals do not act as Courts of appeal and cannot substitute their own judgment for that of the Management. The Supreme Court has, however, laid down that the Tribunals acquire jurisdiction to interfere with the Managements decision dismissing a workman on the basis of the findings of a domestic enquiry, if any of the following infirmities are present in the said enquiry:-