Tribunal has power to reappraise evidence adduced in domestic enquiry and grant appropriate relief to workman under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

M.Y.Eqbal, J.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, namely Management or West Bokaro Colliery of M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., challenged the Award of the Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, in Reference Case No. 191 of 1990. By the aforesaid Award the Tribunal directed the Management to reinstate the workman retrospectively with effect from the date of his dismissal and also for payment of 50% of his back wages including allied benefits from the date of his dismissal till the date he is reinstated in accordance with the Award.

2. The facts of the case which gave rise to the instant case are as follows:

In the month of February, 1986, respondent No. 2, workman under the petitioner was charge-sheeted by levelling the following allegations: "On December 20, 1985 at about 2.45 p.m. you along with about 50 Villagers of Duni armed with Tangi, Farsa, Arrows, Bows and other lethal weapons , attacked Sri Rameshwar Prasad Singh, Havildar with the above lethal weapons, who was in second shift duty from 8.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. at Washery No. II gate and as a result of the murderous attack he was killed at the above spot. On getting information about the at-tack, the Security Personnel immediately rushed to save the life of Sri Rameshwar Prasad Singh but on seeing them you shouted "MARO" and chased them along with other villagers due to which they got panicky and left the spot."

According to the petitioner the above allegation was a serious act of misconduct under the provisions of Clause 25(5) of the Standing Orders and therefore, the workman was called upon to submit his explanation.

3. In response to the above charge the workman submitted his explanation denying the charges and stating that he was not present at the time of occurrence as he was working as driver in Washery No. 1 for which second shift was from 3.p.m. to 11 a.m. The workman further explained that on that date he reported to duty at 3 p.m. and stated that at about 4 p.m. he came to know that his cousin Fuleshwar Mahto was killed by Security Guard. In the explanation, the workman further submitted that he was made an accused for the murder of Havildar (Rameshwar Prasad Singh) in which he obtained bail from the Court. The workman further claimed that since the case was pending on the similar charge, it would not be proper to hold domestic enquiry till the pendency of the case as the departmental enquiry would put hurdle in the case pending in the Court. A prayer was made to postpone the domestic enquiry till the disposal of the case in the Court of Sessions.

4. It appears that the Management decided to initiate Departmental proceedings and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. In the departmental proceeding the workman was found guilty of the charges levelled against him and on the basis of the enquiry report the Management issued an order on February 5, 1987 dismissing the workman from service with effect from February 12, 1987. After the aforesaid dismissal a dispute was raised by the workman which was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication. It appears that the following dispute was referred by the Central Government in exercise of power conferred by Clause (d) of Sub- section (1) and Sub-sec. (2-A) of Sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act for short):

"Whether the action of the Management of West Bokaro Colliery of M/s TISCO Ltd. P.O. Ghatotand Dist., Hazaribagh by non-reinstating the services of Sri Mahabir Ma-hato. Ex. M.V. Driver, West Bokaro Colliery of TISCO Ltd. w.e.f. February 13, 1987 and not making payment of allied benefits payable to him from time to time is legal and justified? If not to what relief the workman concerned is entitled?"

5. Before discussing the validity of finding arrived at by the Tribunal, it is worth to mention here that the Tribunal by order dated March 25, 1992 held that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper. After the dispute was referred