IMPORTANT POINT
A tribunal must adjudicate the fairness of a domestic inquiry before addressing the merits of a dismissal, ensuring decisions are reasoned and within jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging an Award dated 20.03.2015 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Silchar in Reference Case No. 6 / 2009. The petitioner herein is the Management of the Kallinecherra Tea Estate.

2. As per the facts projected, the concerned workman was appointed as Head Clerk under the petitioner-Management. On allegations of certain misconduct, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him by issuance of a Charge Sheet dated 13.07.2007. The same was replied on 17.07.2007 which was found not to be satisfactory and accordingly, a domestic enquiry was initiated by appointment of an Enquiry Officer. It is the case of the Management that the enquiry was held in compliance with the principles of natural justice in which the workman was given all the opportunities to defend himself. The enquiry culminated in a report dated 28.11.2007 with a finding against the workman and accordingly vide order dated 31.12.2007, he was dismissed from service. The workman had raised an industrial dispute through the respondent No. 2 - Union which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Silchar vide Government Notification No. GLR.147/2009/25 dated 16.10.2009 with the following terms of reference-

“(a) Whether the Management is justified in terminating the service of Sri Anup Kr. Deb, workman on the basis of enquiry report?

(b) If, not what relief the workman is entitled to?”

3. The Reference was registered as Reference Case No. 6 / 2009. The learned Tribunal, after consideration of the respective written statements of the parties vide an order dated 25.06.2012 had framed a preliminary issue with regard to the fairness of the domestic enquiry and on the said issue both the contesting parties had adduced evidence. It is the case of the Management that instead of answering the preliminary issue, vide the impugned Award dated 20.03.2015, the order of dismissal was set aside with a direction to reinstate the workman in service with all statutory dues and benefits. The primary grievance of the petitioner -Management is that the impugned Award has been passed without assigning any reasons and without there being any discussion.

4. I have heard Shri S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no. 2 - Union. Shri M. Chetia, the learned State Counsel is also heard. The records in original have also been transmitted, pursuant to order of this Court which have been perused.

5. Shri Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations against the workman were serious in nature which constituted instigating other workmen leading to an unrest. By referring to the Charge Sheet dated 13.07.2007, the learned counsel has submitted that the charges were based on cogent materials. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 25.06.2012 of the learned Tribunal whereby a preliminary issue was framed. It is submitted that instead of deciding the preliminary issue, as required under the law, the Award has been passed whereby the order of dismissal dated 31.12.2007 has been set aside.

6. By referring to the issue involved in the Reference, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from a reading of the impugned Award, it appears that the competency of the authority issuing the order of dismissal has been mentioned. It is submitted that the same was not even an issue and consequently, there was no pleading at all on the side of the Union regarding lack of competency of the authority issuing the dismissal order. He has also submitted that the impugned Award has not cited any reasons for reaching the conclusion.

7. On the submission that once a preliminary issue was framed, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to decide the same, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court M.L. Singla vs. Punjab