- (1.) Seeking quashing of award dated 19.10.2009 in Reference No. 82 of 1998 whereby the dismissal of the workman/respondent has been held illegal and not justified and hence he is entitled to full back wages from the date of dismissal till his retirement/death, the petitioner-employers in relation to the Management of Sudamdih Shaft Mine under Eastern Jharia Area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. has preferred the present writ petition. The brief facts of the case are that, on 16/18.9.1995 a charge-sheet for commission of various acts of misconduct viz. negligence of duty, fraud, dishonesty and willful damage to work in progress etc. was issued to the workman/respondent. Since the explanation of the workman was not found satisfactory, a departmental enquiry was initiated in which other workmen namely, Shri D. Pandey, Shri Ram Pravin Singh and Shri Amal Sarkar, against whom identical charges were levelled, were also included. In the departmental enquiry, the Management examined one PN. Singh as MW-1 and one I. Ghosh as MW-2. The Management witness namely, PN. Singh deposed that on 14.7.1995, the then Chief of Security, BCCL inspected Sudamdih area Check Post, Security Post, Weighbridge, etc. and he seized five registers from the Inclined Mine Check Post of coal transport in which the details of coal transportation for the months of March and April, 1995 were registered. The Chief of Security submitted his report stating that several irregularities in coal transportation during different periods were noticed. The Chief of Security had seized six challans which bear signature of Shri S.N. Sah. Shri I. Ghosh, MW-2 deposed that he cross-checked the challans with the CISF Check Posts and noticed irregularities. The charged workmen made a request that their signatures should be examined by the experts as they denied that they signed the challans. It was claimed that someone else had forged their signatures on the challans and therefore, they requested for verification of their actual signatures. The enquiry officer vide enquiry report dated 9.4.1996 found the charge of neglect of work/simple carelessness of duty proved against the workman/respondent namely, S.N. Sah, due to the system failure. The charges against other charge-sheeted workmen were not found proved. A second show-cause notice alongwith the copy of the enquiry report was given to the workmen on 30.6.1996 and vide order dated 5.8.1996, the respondent-workman was dismissed from the service. The respondent-workman raised a dispute and after the failure of the conciliation, the Appropriate Government vide order dated 10.9.1998 referred the dispute for adjudication. Before the Tribunal, the enquiry officer was examined as MW-1 and the entire enquiry proceeding was marked as Ext. M-2. The respondent-workman examined himself as WW-1 and his two sons were examined as WW-2 and WW-3 and they deposed that their father died on 13.8.2002. The Industrial Tribunal delivered award on 19.10.2009 in Reference No. 82 of 1998. Heard Counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent is absent.
(2.) Shri A.K. Mehta, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that once it is found that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper, and it was conducted following the rules of natural justice, the Tribunal should not interfere with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. It is further contended that under section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court/Tribunal cannot re-appraise the evidence as the Tribunal does not sit in appeal on the findings of the enquiry officer. Though the concerned workman died on 13.8.2002, no step was taken for substitution of the legal heirs. It is thus contended that no proceeding at the instance of a dead person can proceed and, the proceeding before the Tribunal stood abated. It is further submitted that the Tribunal committed a serious error while recording that though the order of dismissal was passed on 29.7.1996, the show-cause notice was given on 30.7.1996. The learned Counsel relied on decision in West Bokaro Colliery (Tisco Ltd.) v. Ram Pravesh Singh, 2008 3 SCC 729, and in Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh v. Management of Usha Breco Limited and another, 2008 118 FLR 400
(3.) I have carefully considered the submission of the Counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents on record.;