Judicial review of industrial tribunal awards is restricted to instances of perversity. If a delinquent employee fully comprehends the charges during a domestic inquiry and suffers no prejudice, technical defects in a show-cause notice do not justify the invalidation of disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Mochahary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. D. Nath, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1.

2. This Court strikes out the Respondent No.2 from the array of parties inasmuch as, it is well settled that when an Authority exercises judicial powers, the said Authority ought not to have been made a party in a writ proceedings. In fact, the Supreme Court in various judgments has also deprecated arraying the Presiding Officers of the Tribunals as parties to the writ proceedings.

PREFACE:

3. The instant writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the Award dated 06.10.2017 passed in Reference Case No.1/2015 by the Court of the learned Industrial Tribunal of Assam, at Dibrugarh (for short ‘the learned Industrial Tribunal’) whereby the application filed by the writ Petitioner under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short ‘the Act of 1947’) was dismissed holding inter alia that the Petitioner is not entitled to be reinstated in his service with full back wages nor any other consequential benefits and further opining that the Petitioner would be entitled to get all the benefits due to him from the date of the joining in his service till the date of dismissal as per the rules of the Tea Estate.

4. The question which arises in the instant proceedings is as to whether this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution should interfere with the impugned Award dated 06.10.2017.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

5. The brief facts which led to the filing of the instant proceedings are that on 02.11.2006, the management of the Respondent Tea Estate issued a notice informing all concerned that some of the workers of Muttuck Tea Estate have been indulging in acts subversive of discipline in respect to lands within the Tea Estate grant and have passed on occupation to unauthorized persons, resulting in encroachment of garden lands. It was further mentioned that in the recent past, the workers have been warned of such illegal activities, but no attention has been paid to the Management's reasonable pleas. It was further mentioned that if such activities are carried on, strict disciplinary action as well as appropriate legal measures would be adopted to oust the encroachers. Additionally, it was informed that any worker involved in such illegal and subversive activities would be liable for termination from service.

6. Pursuant thereto, a notice was issued to the Petitioner on 16.11.2006 alleging that on 12.11.2006, the Petitioner had constructed a Kutcha house in Bunglawguri line without any prior discussion/permission from the Management. It was further mentioned that in the General Notice dated 02.11.2006, it was clearly informed to all workers of the garden regarding encroachment of the company's land. Further to that, in the notice dated 16.11.2006, it was mentioned that if the charges against the Petitioner i.e. the Petitioner on 12.11.2006 had constructed a Kutcha house in Bunglawguri line without any prior discussion/permission from the Management in clear violation to the General Notice dated 02.11.200