EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO MANAGEMENT OF SUDAMDIH SHAFT MINES OF MESSRS THE BHARAT COKING COAL LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner -Employers in relation to the management of Sudamdih Shaft Mines of Messrs has preferred this writ petition for quashing the Award dated 29th September, 1992 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Reference No. 154 of 1989 whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal held that the action of the management in dismissing the workman -Sri Narayan Gosai from its service w.e.f. 11/12th October, 1987 is not justified and the workman should be reinstated from the date of dismissal with full back wages and continuity of service.

(2.) THE case of petitioner is that the workman -Sri Narayan Gosai was a piece -rated miner in Sudamdih Shaft Mine of Sudamdih Project. On 30th January, 1987, he in connivance with some other miscreants had attempted to steal away about 35 Kgs. of copper cable costing about Rs. 2500/ - from the precinct of Shaft Mine and he was caught red handed by security staff specially posted for curbing such thefts. On receipt of such report, the Superintendent of Mines/Manager, Shaft Mine, issued charge -sheet dated 31st January, 1987 to the concerned workman calling for his explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be taken. On receipt of such explanation, being not satisfied, a departmental proceeding was . initiated against the workman and the enquiry officer on the basis of materials placed before him came to the conclusion that the management has been able to prove charges leveled against the concerned workman. The workman -Sri Narayan Gosai was, thereafter, dismissed by the Management w.e.f. 3rd January, 1987.

(3.) IT is true that the strict principle of evidence Act is not required to be followed in a departmental proceeding but if it is followed by a Tribunal find out whether the charge against the workman is correct and based on evidence or not, it cannot be interfered on the ground that the principle of evidence act was followed.