A.K. Sinha, J. - (1.) This Rule was obtained by the petitioner for quashing an award given by the Industrial Tribunal, respondent No. 1. under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (referred to herein as the Act). The petitioner owns a colliery at a place known as Parbelia where the respondent No. 2 was employed as a "Fan Khalasi" and respondent No. 3 as a "Wagon Shunter." Both of them were charge-sheeted for misconduct as, it was alleged, they trespassed in the court-yard of one R. L. Mahato, a Foreman trainee of the colliery and they confessed their guilt when they were caught by some of the workmen who came hearing the row from the neighbouring quarters. There was a domestic enquiry proceeding and on the report of the enquiry Officer both the workmen were dismissed.
(2.) Then, there was an Industrial Dispute raised by the Union of these workmen which was ultimately referred to the Tribunal, the respondent No. 1. for adjudication. Thereafter, the Tribunal by its award of October 23, 1968, held that the dismissal of both these workmen was unjustified and they were entitled to reinstatement but this was without prejudice to the employer company to start fresh proceeding against the workmen for the same misconduct. That is how, in short, the petitioner felt aggrieved and obtained the present Rule.
(3.) The Tribunal, it appears, on consideration of several matters and on distinguishing a decision of the Supreme Court, Central India Coal Fields Ltd. v. Ram Bilas Shobnath, (1961) 1 Lab LJ 546 : A.I.R. 1961 SC 1189 , on facts concluded that "the procedure adopted in the domestic enquiry violated natural justice and for that reason the findings of the domestic enquiry cannot be sustained and consequently the penalty imposed must also be set aside." The Tribunal in support of such conclusion assigned several reasons. First is that the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were charged for drunkenness amongst other charges, although no such specific charge of misconduct was stated in the charge-sheet and this contravened the rules of natural justice. Second is that consideration of a report of the domestic Inquiring Officer from his personal visit to the place of occurrence without giving any opportunity to the workmen to rebut the evidence, if at all admissible, contained in the report tant-amounts to a denial of natural justice. Thirdly non consideration of the evidence of a witness by the Enquiring Officer just because he did not sign his statement, also led to contravention of natural justice. Fourthly although, the order in a Criminal Court is not res-judicata before a domestic enquiry, it is significant that when these workmen were prosecuted in a criminal court on identical charges, no evidence could be produced by the prosecution and they were discharged. Lastly the Enquiring Officer imported his own imagination into the enquiry report in support of his findings that the charges against the workmen were established.;