M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) IN this writ application the petitioner, who is the management of Bhalgora Area of M/s. BCCL, has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad dated 13.6.2000 in Reference Case No. 98/94 whereby the award has been answered in favour of the respondent - workmen and further prayed for quashing the order dated 22.11.1995 passed by the Tribunal whereby it was held that the domestic enquiry could have been conducted by an officer of the Company as enquiry officer and not by any other officer.
(2.) THE fact of the case lies in a narrow compass. In 1986 the petitioner Management had formulated scheme and guidelines for appointment of the candidates belonging to the scheduled tribe and scheduled caste and accordingly different areas of company submitted their list of suitable candidates. A panel of 319 names of such selected candidates belonging to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe was prepared for providing employment to Bhalgora Area. In the said panel names of the concerned workmen were not included. The case of the management is that the concerned workmen, in connivance with the dealing Assistant and Personnel Manager and by practising fraud, were recruited in Bhalgora Area. Later on when the fraud was detected the Personnel Manager and the Dealing Assistant were removed from the services and charge -sheets were issued to the concerned workmen. Departmental enquiry was set up and one Shri S.L. Keshwani was appointed as enquiry officer. On the basis of the report submitted by the enquiry officer the concerned workmen were removed from the services on the charges of fraud, cheating etc. Thereafter the Union raised an industrial dispute which ended in failure. Ultimately the following dispute was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication : - - "Whether the action of the management of Bhalgora Area of M/s. BCCL. P.O. Jharia. Dist. Dhanbad in dismissing/terminating the services of Shri Ram Praveeh Paswan and 37 other workmen (as per list enclosed) w.e.f. 13/20.4.1993 and not allowing them in service of the company is justified? If not, to what relief these workmen are entitled to? "Corrigendum of even No. dated 17/24.2.1997 received as follows : The name of workmen at Sl. No. 3 is Shri Jagu Das, Name at Sl. No. 23 corrected as Binod Das, and name at Sl. No. 26 corrected as Hamesh Rohldas."
(3.) THE petitioners case is that in the domestic enquiry all the concerned workmen participated and all opportunities were allowed to the concerned workmen as available under the principle of natural Justice. However, the Union raised objection before the Tribunal with regard to the validity of the departmental enquiry and the enquiry report on the ground that the enquiry officer conducting the enquiry was not competent to conduct the enquiry as his appointment was contrary to the provisions of Certified Standing Orders applicable in the case of the concerned workmen. It appears that the Tribunal accordingly framed a preliminary issue as to whether the enquiry officer was competent to conduct the enquiry or not. The Tribunal vide order dated 22.11.1995 held that the departmental enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer was vitiated as the enquiry officer was not competent to hold the enquiry and the enquiry report was bad in law. The Tribunal by order dated 10.10.1996 allowed the management to adduce evidence. Against the said order the sponsoring Union filed CWJC No. 2430/97(R) before this Court. It appears that the reference case remained pending before the Tribunal and a petition was flied on behalf of the management making a prayer to allow the management to adduce evidence to establish charges against the respective workmen. The learned Tribunal, however, passed the award on 13.6.2000 answering the reference in favour of the workmen.;