EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF KUSUNDA AREA OF BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED Vs. THEIR WORKMEN BEING REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COLLIERY CONGRESS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by Award dated 01.07.2009 in Reference No. 280 of 2000, the management of Kusunda Area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited has preferred the present petition.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, on 16.02.1994 a criminal case was registered against the workman for offence under Sections 379 and 411 I.P.C. on the allegation of committing theft of armoured cable with joint box. On the next day i.e. on 17.02.1994 a charge-memo was served upon the workman for committing misconduct under Clause 26.1.11 and 26.1.15 of the Certified Standing Orders for Workmen of Establishments under BCCL. During the domestic enquiry the management examined three witnesses in support of the charge framed against the workman. The workman participated in the domestic enquiry and examined himself. By issuing a second show-cause notice dated 31.08.1994, a copy of enquiry report dated 02.07.1994 was served upon the workman requiring him to submit his objection to the finding recorded by the enquiry officer. The Disciplinary Authority passed order of dismissal from service on 02.11.1994. It is stated that the criminal court by judgment and order dated 25.02.1999 acquitted the workman of criminal charges framed against him. Thereafter, an industrial dispute was raised by the workman on 26.04.1999 and the Appropriate Government in exercise of power under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act made reference to the Industrial Tribunal on 18.09.2000. Before the Industrial Tribunal, the record of domestic enquiry was produced by the management. Taking note of acquittal of workman in criminal case, the Industrial Tribunal recorded a finding that in view of the misconduct committed by the workman, order of dismissal from service was not justified rather, the management could have imposed minor penalty such as, stoppage of increment etc. against the workman. The reference was answered in favour of the workman granting 60% back-wages however, without benefit of increment and promotion till, the joining of workman.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.