The main legal point established is that a workman should not be penalized for faults in the system, and the delay in raising an industrial dispute should not be attributed to the workman.

1. The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the award dated 15.02.2017 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad (in short ‘the learned Tribunal’) in Reference No. 34/2012 whereby the punishment awarded by the petitioner-management to the concerned workman has been held not fair and justified with a direction to the petitioner-management to pay all the dues to the concerned workman as a regular employee of the management by maintaining his grade and if he has retired in the meantime, to give all the retiral benefits to him.

2. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the concerned workman (K. P. Mahto) joined the services of M/S Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro on 23.03.1977 and was posted as Storekeeper in T.A Department. The internal audit department of M/S Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro submitted its report in which it was pointed out that there was discrepancy in sale proceeds of the tickets at JNB Park and an amount of Rs.1,29,856/- towards the sale proceeds of the tickets was not submitted in the cash section. Based on the internal audit report, an explanation was sought from the concerned workman vide TA/D/BP/2001/493 dated 14.07.2001 alleging inter alia that he was responsible for sale of tickets being the In-charge of JNB Park. The concerned workman accepted to have committed the irregularity vide his reply dated 25.07.2001. The fact finding committee was also constituted vide Office Order No. GM(TS)/3935 dated 25.07.2001 to find out the details of irregularity. The concerned workman admitted to have defalcated a sum of Rs.1,29,856/- before the fact finding committee due to financial crisis in the family. After making enquiry, the fact finding committee submitted its report mentioning inter alia that the concerned workman prima facie appears to have embezzled an amount of Rs.1,29,856/. Thereafter, the petitioner-management issued charge sheet-cum-order of suspension dated 02.08.2001 against the concerned workman, who on receipt of the charge sheet submitted his reply on 13.08.2001 stating therein that he is ready to deposit the said amount which was not deposited owing to his financial constraints. The petitioner-management commenced the domestic enquiry during which the concerned workman submitted petition mentioning therein that the defalcated amount has been deposited by him. The said enquiry concluded with submission of the report by the enquiry committee holding the concerned workman guilty of the charges and on the basis of the said report the disciplinary authority passed the order of punishment against the concerned workman reducing his pay to the lowest stage in the existing scale vide order dated 15.01.2002, which was communicated to the concerned workman vide Office Order No. PERS/TA/2002-124 dated 16.01.2002. Thereafter, the respondent-Union raised an industrial dispute and subsequently the Government of India, vide letter dated 29.03.2012 referred the dispute for adjudication before the learned Tribunal. The said reference was registered as Reference No. 34/2012 which was finally answered in favour of the concerned workman with a direction to the petitioner-management to give all the dues to the concerned workman treating him to be a regular employee and maintaining his grade. The petitioner-management has filed the present writ petition challenging the award dated 15.02.2017 before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned award on the ground that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the admission of the concerned workman in respect of the defalcated money. Once the concerned workman admitted his guilt, it was immaterial and irrelevant to see as to whether there was any error in the system. The learned Tribunal also failed to consider the fact that the dispute was of the year 2002, however, the same was raised by the respondent-Union in the year 2011-12