Procedural fairness and adherence to principles of natural justice are critical in disciplinary enquiries, and failure to comply can render a dismissal unjust.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.

1. The writ application has been preferred challenging the order of reference dated 29^th February, 2000/7^th March, 2000 and the impugned award dated 26^th May, 2010 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Asansol.

2. The petitioner company’s case is that the respondent No.1 was working as an Underground Loader at Maize Colliery and he remained absent from his duty unauthorisedly since 10th December, 1997 and as such was charge sheeted by the petitioner company vide charge sheet No. MC/D- 1/89/113/98/969 dated 18th March, 1998 for his acts of Misconduct.

3. The respondent No.1 submitted his reply to the charge sheet but as the explanations offered by the Respondent No.1 was found to be unsatisfactory, a Departmental enquiry was held.

4. The respondent No.1 duly participated in the enquiry proceeding and all reasonable opportunities were given to the ex-workman to defend his case in accordance with the principles of Natural justice. The Enquiry Officer after conclusion of his Enquiry proceeding submitted his findings before the appointing Authority and the charges of misconduct were duly established in the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer.

5. Prior to imposition of punishment upon the Respondent No.1, he was given an opportunity vide letter No.BA/PD/DIS/98/2733 dated 28th August, 1998 to submit his objection, if any, in respect of the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the respondent No.1 submitted his explanation to the competent authority by his letter dated 5.10.1998.

6. Thereafter the disciplinary authority after careful consideration of the charge sheet, enquiry proceeding, report of the enquiry and other relevant documents, considering the past record of service of the Respondent No.1, applying his mind independently and considering the gravity of misconduct duly established and proved in the enquiry proceeding, imposed upon the respondent No.1 an order of dismissal from service.

7. The respondent No.2 raised a purported industrial dispute on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 before the conciliatory machinery of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour. The conciliation having failed, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, the respondent No.4 herein by an order No.L-22012/401/99/IR(CM-II) dated 29th February, 2000/7th March, 2000 referred the following dispute for adjudication by the respondent No.3:-

"Whether the action of the management of Moira Colliery of M/s. ECL, in dismissing Sh. Magaram Bouri, Underground Loader is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?".

8. The Tribunal by an order dated 27th April, 2005 held that the enquiry was valid and fair.

9. The specific case of the petitioner is that the parties only filed the documents before the Tribunal but said documents were not tendered through any witness. Despite thereof the Tribunal marked a Medical Certificate produced by the respondent No.1 as Exhibit W/1. It is settled proposition in law that unless the enquiry is declared to be invalid by an Industrial Tribunal or a Labour Court, as the case may be, there is no scope to adduce fresh evidence to substantiate whether the charges have been proved or not.

10. It is further stated that in the instant case, the Tribunal has held that the Enquiry was valid and fair and as such there was no question of adducing any fresh evidence to substantiate whether the charges have been proved or not. The Tribunal by marking the said Medical Certificate as Exhibit W/1 has traveled beyond the scope of its jurisdiction.

11. Finally the tribunal by the award under challenge dated 26^th May, 2010 held as fol