( 1 )

( 2 ) WITH the consent of the parties matter is heard at this stage.

( 3 ) CHARGE-SHEET dated 27. 12. 78 was issued to the respondent -workman by the petitioner management. In reply to the said charge-sheet the respondent-workman submitted letter dated 9. 1. 79 which reads as under:

"most respectfully, I would like to bring to your kind notice the two memos which you had issued vide letter Nos. D/adm/pf/162/78-79 dated 5. 1. 79 I personally admit that I have committed a mistake and that in future I would not do such things. I hope you will please forgive me".

( 4 ) THEREAFTER, by order dated 15/17. 3. 79 one Shri K. P. Sarin, Sales Manager was appointed as inquiring authority to inquire into the charges framed against the said workman. Preliminary inquiry was held on 29. 3. 79 and in the said inquiry after the charges were read out the workman admitted having written letter dated 9. 1. 79 before the Inquiry Officer also. This letter was treated as unqualified apology submitted by the workman and on the basis of this letter and without proceeding further in the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer returned the finding staling that the charges against the workman as levelled in the charge sheet dated 27. 12. 78 stood proved and on that basis punishment of down grading of the petitioner was imposed upon him. Workman raised industrial dispute and conciliation proceedings were held and thereafter Secretary Delhi Administration made the reference in the following terms:

"whether the punishment of down grading of Sh. S. P. Bhargava is disproportionate? If so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions arc necessary in this behalf?"

( 5 ) AFTER the reference, matter was adjudicated upon by the Industrial Tribunal No. 1 which resulted in the impugned Award dated 2. 3. 96. A perusal of the Award shows that the Industrial Tribunal has examined letter dated 9. 1. 79 and has come to the conclusion that the said letter does not amount to accepting the charges. It is further observed that even if he had accepted the charge and tendered the apology, management could have punished him only after a formal departmental enquiry and not on the basis of letter of apology and as the Inquiry Officer did not hold the inquiry,. the punishment of down grading imposed upon him was held to be neither justified nor legal. Relevant. portion of the award reads a under:

"it is, therefore, clear that alleged letter of apology was not the acceptance of he charge that the workmen committed fraud or dishonesty by wrongly marking Diwari Lal present while in fact he was not present. Thus in the alleged letter of apology; the workman had not accepted the charge. Otherwise also even if he had accepted the charge and tendered the apology the management could have punished him only after a formal departmental enquiry and not only on the alleged letter of apology. As stated above it is admitted to the Enquiry Officer that he did not hold any departmental enquiry. It is, therefore, clear from the above discussion that punishment on the workman by the management by down grading him was not either justified or legal. I accordingly set aside the same and order accordulgiy".

( 6 ) ASSAILING the aforesaid finding , Mr. Raj Birbal, Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner argued that by going into the validity of the inquiry, Industrial Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction. As per terms of reference the Industrial Tribunal was required to go into the question as to whether punishment of down grading was disproportionate to the charge or not as only this aspect was referred for adjudication. There is a force in this submission. The dispute as to whether the punishment was legal or valid was not referred and the terms of reference clearly stipulate that the Industrial Tribunal was to go into the question as to whether the punishment was "disproportionate" or not. It is the accepted principle of law that the Industrial Tribunal has to confine the adjudication w