- (1.) THE petitioner -Management -Company has prayed for quashing the Award dated 289.2005, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 98/1994, answering the reference in favour of respondent -Union holding that the action of the Management in dismissing the services of Ram Pravesh Paswan and 37 others with effect from 13/20.4.1993 is not justified and that accordingly they are entitled for reinstatement with half back wages.
(2.) MR . Mehta, appearing for the Management, submitted as follows. In 1986, a decision was taken by the Company, to recruit scheduled castes and scheduled tribes candidates against the vacancies of miner/loader. The Company -Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the different areas under the Management including the Bhowra area, invited names from the employment exchange and prepared a panel of eligible candidates after Trade Test etc. The lists sent by employment exchange are Exts. M -3 to M -3/3. After filling up the vacancies from the said panel, Bhowra area sent lists of left over candidates to Bhalgora Area being Exts. M -4 to M -4/4. The names of 38 concerned persons were not in the said lists of the candidates, but in connivance with one Jitendra Kumar Adesra, the dealing assistant and one Pyare Mohan Prasad, the then Personnel Manager, both of Bhalgora area, and other concerned persons, by practicing fraud, the 38 persons in question, got employed as S.C., S.T. candidates in Bhalgora area, but within one year such fraud was detected The said employees -J.K. Adesra and P.M. Prasad were removed from service. Though, it was not necessary to is - sue charge -sheet, as even the said appointments were provisional, but for abundant precaution, the Management issued charge -sheets to such 38 workmen on the ground that -in the lists of 319 persons of 1986 panel, sent from Bhowra area to Bhalgora area (in six lots from November, 1990 to February 1991, for recruitment of provisional/temporary miner/loader) their names did not exist, but in connivance with J.K. Adesra, the Dealing Assistant and P.M. Prasad, the Personnel Manager, they obtained offer of appointment of provisional/temporary miner/loaders fraudulently by submitting forged/fabricated documents, which constituted misconduct as per the certified standing order. The workmen replied to the said charge -sheet denying the charges. They specifically contended that -it is false to allege that their names did not exist in the lists forwarded by Bhowra area to Bhalgora area; and that there was no connivance as alleged. Departmental enquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer found the said persons guilty. The enquiry report was accepted by the Agent/Project Officer of the colliery and he recommended their discharge from service which was approved by the General Manager of Bhalgora area in April, 1993. An industrial dispute was raised by the Union. By order dated 8.4.1994, the following dispute was referred 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 Pravesh Paswan and 37 other workmen (as per list enclosed) w.e.1. 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 17/24.2.97 received as follows: The name of workmen at sl. no 3 is Shri Jagu Das, name at SI. No. 23 corrected as 'Binod Das' and name at sl. no. 26 corrected as 'Hamesh Rohidas'." An Award was passed on 13.6.2000 in favour of the concerned persons. It was challenged by the Management vide Writ Petition no. CWJC 4349/2000, including the order dated 22.11.1995 -in which it was held that the domestic enquiry has been conducted by an officer of the Company and not by any other officer. It was, inter alia, found by this Court in the said writ petition that the Tribunal committed serious error of record by holding that the Management did not take any step for seeking permission of the Court to adduce evidence. The judgments of Supreme Court were considered, in which it was said that even if a domestic enquiry is vitiated, the right of the employer to adduce evidence is well recognized. By judgment dated 31.7.2001, passed in the said writ petition, the said Award was held to be perverse and accordingly it was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the reference afresh in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. Thereafter, the Management led evidence. However, by the impugned award, the reference was answered in favour of the workmen. The award is perverse. The Tribunal has made out a third case for the respondent. It has wrongly drawn adverse Inference against the Management. Therefore, Mr. Mehta submitted that the award be set aside. On the other hand, Mr. D. Mukherjee appearing for the respondent, supported the Award and submitted that the scope of interference with the Award, under writ jurisdiction is limited, and only if the Court finds it perverse and illegal, it can be interfered. He further submitted that the appointment letters issued to the workmen were signed by the General Manager of Bhalgora area, who was the competent authority to appoint them and therefore they could not be discharged from service by the agent/Project Officer. Relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Neeta Kaplish reported in (1999)1 SCC 517, he submitted that the approval of General Manager, contained in the record of domestic enquiry, was not the 'material on record' before the Tribunal.
(3.) IN my opinion, the said judgment is not applicable in the present case. Firstly, in the case of Neeta Kaplish (supra), the Management did not adduce any evidence as directed by the Labour Court but produced only its Law Officer and informed the labour Court that it would rely upon the evidence already recorded during enquiry proceeding and in that circumstances, the workmen also did not produce any evidence with the result that the Labour Court dismissed the claim of the workmen. In that circumstances, it was said that the record of enquiry ceased to be material on record and the only course open to the Management was to justify its action by leading fresh evidence, failing which it had to suffer the consequences. In the present case, as noticed above, while setting aside the Award passed earlier, this Court permitted the parties to adduce fresh evidence and accordingly the Management produced evidences. Secondly, the said observation of the Tribunal is contrary to the records. It appears from the records of the Tribunal that all the Exhibits marked, are having a running page, from pages 1 to 454 which includes the approval of the General Manager on the recommendation of the Project Officer to discharge the workmen, being part of Ext. M -2, charge -sheets; as well as the domestic enquiry proceedings, and other documents. Thus it cannot be said that in this case, the records of domestic enquiry was not the 'material on record' before the Tribunal. Thirdly, the strict rules of evidence are not applicable to the proceedings before the Labour Court/Tribunal. (please see paragraph 45 of the judgment reported in (2001)5 see 433 -Karnataka SRTC vs. Lakshmidevamma). Thus, the observations of the Tribunal that the workmen were not discharged by the appointing authority, is wholly perverse and the judgment of Neeta Kaplish (supra) is of no help to the respondent.;