EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF TAPIN SOUTH COLLIERY OF M/S. C.C. LTD. Vs. CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the award dated 07.02.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Ref. Case No. 43/2010 whereby the reference has been answered in favour of the workman, holding that the dismissal of the workman was not legal and the concerned workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with 50% back wages.

(2.) The factual background of the case is that one Shyamlal B.P was appointed on 20.11.1974 as casual worker in Tapin South Colliery. A charge sheet was served upon the workman on 08.02.1999, alleging that Shyamlal B.P died on 19.07.1976 and in his place, the concerned workman started working by impersonating himself as Shyamlal B.P. and thereby committed fraud. A domestic enquiry was initiated against him and ultimately he was dismissed from service. The workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. The term of reference was as to whether the action of the management to dismiss the service of Shri Shyam Lal B.P was legal and if not, what relief the workman is entitled for. The said reference was registered as Reference Case No. 43 of 2010 and, both, the management and the workman filed their written statements. The learned Tribunal vide award dated 07.02.2012 answered the reference in favour of the workman by holding that the management dismissed the workman without any proper evidence and authentication, as the thumb impression of the workman was not verified by the handwriting expert. Learned Tribunal further held that neither second show cause notice nor the enquiry report was served upon the workman, which is against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in 1991 CLR (SC) 61.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that once the domestic enquiry was held to be fair by the learned Tribunal, the action of the Management on the basis of the said domestic enquiry should not have been disturbed in absence of any perversity. It is further submitted that non-supply of second show cause notice is not always fatal and the same cannot be a ground for reinstatement if the workman has failed to show any such prejudice caused to him. It is also submitted that the award is absolutely bad in law primarily for the reason that once the Tribunal held that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper, it could not have gone into the merit of the case as if the Tribunal was an Appellate Authority.