EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF B C C L Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO 1

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, the petitioner who is employer in relation to the management of B.C.C.L. has prayed for quashing the award dated December 17, 1991, passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in reference case No. 102/88, whereby and whereunder he has held that the action of management in terminating the services of the workman concerned, namely, Sri Ramadhar Singh, is not justified and further directed that the said workman should be reinstated with full back wages with continuity of service and his absence from duty shall be treated as leave without pay.

(2.) It appears that the Central Government, in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal:

(3.) The case of the petitioner-management, in short, is that the concerned workman committed serious misconduct of disobedience of lawful orders of superiors and also unauthorised absence from duty continuously for more than 10 days without any satisfactory cause. The workman was, therefore, charge-sheeted for misconduct as per Standing Orders. It is alleged by the management that the workman concerned avoided to receive the charge-sheet and ultimately, it was published in the newspaper. The workman then filed his reply denying the charges levelled against him. The management then held a domestic inquiry. It transpires that the inquiry officer held ex-parte inquiry and after examining the materials on record submitted his report holding that the workman was guilty of misconduct alleged against him. On the basis of the said inquiry report, the competent authority passed final order of dismissal of the workman from service. The matter finally came before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad, as aforesaid. The Tribunal at the instance of the management considered the propriety and fairness of the domestic inquiry as a preliminary issue. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the domestic inquiry conducted by the management was not fair and proper. The Tribunal, thereafter, took up the matter for hearing on merits. The petitioner-management adduced evidences both oral and documentary and the workman concerned, though not adduced any oral evidence but filed some documentary evidences in support of his case. The Tribunal finally came to the conclusion that the charges against the workman concerned have not been proved though the charges are not sustainable. The Tribunal accordingly set aside the order of dismissal of the workman concerned from service.