Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
The Management of Bokaro Steel Plant of Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro – Petitioner
Versus
Amarwa Devi and Others – Respondents
W. P. (L) No. 5556 of 2005
Decided On : 07-09-2016
Industrial Disputes Act - Termination of Services - Section 10(1)(c) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the violation of principles of natural justice in the conduct of departmental proceeding by the petitioner-management, as well as the legal principles related to the grant of back wages under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Fact of the Case:
The workman was terminated from service due to unauthorized absence, and the court found that there was a violation of principles of natural justice in the conduct of the departmental proceeding by the petitioner-management. The workman's legal heirs were substituted during the pendency of the writ application due to the workman's death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dismissal of the workman was not proper due to the failure to comply with the principles of natural justice, and awarded 50% back wages from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement.
Issues: The issues included the unauthorized absence of the workman, violation of principles of natural justice in the conduct of the departmental proceeding, and the award of back wages.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the violation of principles of natural justice in the conduct of the departmental proceeding, as well as the legal principles related to the grant of back wages under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition with the observations and directions related to the award of back wages to the workman's legal heirs.
Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By the impugned Award dated 9th October, 2004 passed in Reference Case No. 8 of 1999 by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, petitioner-management has been directed to reinstate the workman in service with 50% back wages from the date of dismissal within three months of the date of commencement of the Award.
3. The workman has been substituted by his legal heirs during the pendency of the writ application on his death.
4. By Notification no. 7/Shram-D-3607/97 L&E-4312 dated 6th October, 1998 issued under Section 10(1) (c) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the following reference was made to learned Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro.
“Whether the termination of services of Sri R.B. Bhuiaya, workman Staff No. 190041 BMP Coke-Oven and B.P.P. by the management of M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City of the charge of unauthorized absence is proper? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”.
5. Brief facts relevant for adjudicating the issues raised herein are being noticed hereunder:
The concerned workman was appointed as Gas Helper in 1972 and got promotion from time to time in higher grade upto L-5 Grade on 7th January, 1982. He was however in the habit of absenting at frequent intervals, for which the charge-sheet was issued (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) which alleges continuous absence of the workman from duty since 11th October, 1993 without leave or permission. The Management and the workman both adduced one witness on their part.
The documents exhibited by the Management are as follows :-
Ext. M-1 is the offer of appointment, Ext. M-2 is the joining report, Ext.M-3 is the charge-sheet dated 10.7.93, Ext. M-4 is the notesheet, Ext. M-5 is the dismissal order, Ext. M-6 is the charge-sheet dated 20.10.93/4.11.93, Ext. M-7 is the charge-sheet dated 30.3.91, Ext. M8 is the office order dated 29.6.91, Ext. M-9 is the charge-sheet dated 16.3.90, Ext. M-10 is the statement of allegation, Ext. M-11 letter of the management dated 13.7.93, Ext. M-12 is the notesheet, Ext. M-13 is the letter of the management, dated 15.11.90, Ext. M-14 is the charge-sheet dated 1214.7.89, Ext. M-15 is the statement of allegation, Ext. M-16 is the office order dated 30.1.1990, Ext. M-17 is the statement of the workman, Ext. M-18 is the letter of the management, Ext. M-19 and M-20 are the letters of the management, Ext. M21 is the charge-sheet dated 6./7.9.88, Ext. M-22 is the statement of allegation, Ext. M-23 is the letter of the management dated 14.10.88, Ext. M-24 is the charge-sheet dated 11.4.88, Ext. M25 is the statement of allegation, Ext. M26 to M-28 are the letters of the management, Ext. M-29 is the application for gratuity, Ext. M30 is the xerox copy of the delegation of power and Exts. M-31 to M-31/92 are the xerox copies of the pay slips of the concerned workman.
The documents exhibited by the workman are as follows :–
Ext. W-1 is the xerox copy of letter of the workman dated 28.9.95 addressed to the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Bokaro Steel City and Ext. M-2 is the enquiry report dated 15.2.94.
6. It is undisputed that the workman did not participate in the inquiry which proceeded ex parte against him. Learned Tribunal also came to a finding that the absence of the workman was unauthorized as there was no leave or permission granted to him. The other exhibits relating to his unauthorized absence in the year 1987 were also on record by the management. The domestic inquiry held the workman guilty of habitual unauthorized absence.
7. However, it is also evident from the records that no copy of inquiry report or any second show-cause notice was served upon the workman before imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. The learned Tribunal also came to a finding that the management was in error in not serving copy of the inquiry report along with second show-cause notice before imposing the punishment of dismissal.
8. Considering the ra
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
