The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the emphasis on the right of the employee to choose the forum for redressal of grievances.

Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the Food Corporation of India for quashing the order dated 20.07.2004 passed by learned Presiding officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna in Reference case No. 4C/2000 by which and whereunder order of punishment in departmental proceeding against the original respondent No. 3 was set aside and concerned employee, original respondent No. 3, was exonerated from the charges and furthermore, employer, Food Corporation of India, was directed to refund entire amount which had been recovered from the pay of the original respondent No. 3 on the basis of punishment in the departmental proceeding. The original respondent No. 3, namely, Ram Brat Paswan was an assistant grade I under the Food Corporation of India and between 1984 to 1990, he was holding charge of Silobin of the Depot at Gaya. An inspection team conducted inspection of stock of Silobin and found several illegalities/irregularities. The inspecting team found that original respondent No. 3 by misusing his official position caused loss of wheat stock and also committed act of misconduct as a result thereof, he downgraded stock from B category to below D category. Accordingly, two charge sheets were issued against him and enquiry was conducted. The Enquiring officer after conclusion of the enquiry submitted his enquiry report and thereafter, disciplinary authority, having perused the enquiry report passed punishment order dated 25.11.1998 by which the disciplinary authority reduced his rank to the lower post assistant grade II(D) at minimum pay with recovery of 1/3rd of his basic pay of three years. A dispute was raised in respect of the above stated punishment and thereafter, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute. The parties to the above stated dispute filed their written statement and led evidence. The Industrial Tribunal, having considered the materials available on record, passed the impugned order dated 20.07.2004 against which this writ petition has been preferred.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenged the impugned award arguing that the Industrial Tribunal did not consider several important legal questions while passing the impugned award. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Industrial Tribunal failed to consider this aspect of the matter that original respondent No. 3 was not a workman and the aforesaid point was raised by the petitioner before learned Industrial Tribunal at the initial stage of the reference but learned Industrial Tribunal did not give any finding on the above stated point. He further submitted that similarly, learned Industrial Tribunal did not give any finding on the point of covering the wheat by Tarpaulin. He further submitted that when the Corporation received notice issued by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Corporation challenged the reference before this court by filing CWJC No. 11571/2000 on two grounds, firstly, that there was statutory appeal as well as review under the Regulations 69 and 74 respectively of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 against the order of punishment and secondly, original respondent No. 3 was not a workman under the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He further submitted that a petition to the above stated effect was also filed before learned Presiding officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna. He further submitted that, however, at the time of hearing of CWJC No. 11571/2000, Corporation withdrew the aforesaid CWJC No. 11571/2000 and this court vide order dated 01.09.2003 permitted the Corporation to withdraw the above stated CWJC No. 11571/2000 but a liberty was given to the Corporation to raise all questions in reference before Industrial Tribunal. He further submitted that the petitioner/Corporation gave all details about pay and supervisory nature of work of original respondent No. 3 before Industrial Tribunal to