R.K.MERATHIA,J. - (1.) HEARD . Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of reference dated 4.10.2001 (Annexure 1) issued by respondent No. 2, whereby and whereunder purported dispute raised by the concerned workman (respondent No. 1) was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court; and also for quashing the order dated 25.11.2003 passed in Reference Case No. 9 of 2001 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro under which petitioner's application for deciding the preliminary issue was rejected.
(2.) RELEVANT facts in short are as follows. A complaint was made by one Baru Gorain son of Fakir Gorain before the management that the concerned workman is in fact Sona Ram Teli son of Karu Gorain and also that the name of wife children declared in service records are false and that he got employment by impersonation whereas the complainant was entitled to employment being a displaced person. In the preliminary enquiry held by vigilance department, the complainant's allegations were found correct. A departmental proceeding was initiated. In reply to the charge sheet he admitted the charges. He took part in the departmental proceeding. The Enquiry Officer held that the concerned workman got employment by impersonation. Ultimately he was dismissed from service on 28.2.1985. Instead of raising an industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act (I.D. Act for short) he chose to file a petition under Section 33A of the I.D. Act for setting aside the said order of dismissal, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 6 of 1986. By Award dated 22.1.1991 (Annexure 4), the said Misc. Case No. 6 of 1986, was disposed of holding that the concerned workman was not entitled to any relief. The Labour Court found that in the Reference Case No. 39 of 1973, all the employees of Bokaro Steel Plant, who were on roll of the company on 30.12.1970, were directly or indirectly concerned in the dispute, whereas, the concerned workman was appointed in 1979, much after the reference of the said dispute and therefore he was not at all directly or indirectly concerned with the said pending Reference Case No. 39 of 1973. On the issue, whether the dismissal of the concerned workman was justified or not, the Labour Court found that the domestic enquiry was properly held: the concerned workman admitted in reply to the charge -sheet that he was not the real Barn Gorain; and that the concerned workman was guilty of misconduct and false impersonation which is a serious one and therefore, his dismissal was justified.
(3.) AFTER about nine years the concerned workman challenged the said Award by filing a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 133 of 199 (R) which was disposed of on 28.11.2000 (Annexure 5). The concluding portion of the said order reads as follows: In the facts and circumstances of the case, there being delay of about 8 to 9 years, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. However, the petitioner may raise a dispute under Section 10 of the Act, if permissible. In such case, if any reference is made, the Presding Officer will decide the issues on merit, in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by the award in question. The writ applications stands disposed of with aforesaid observation. ;