IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, JJ.
Sajjad Khan, Son of Late Akbar Khan – Appellant
Versus
Employer in relation to the Management of Noonidih Project of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 109 of 2021
Decided on : 19-06-2023
Fraud - Employment Dispute - National Coal Wage Agreement - Clause 9.4.2, Section 17 of the Contract Act - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The case involves an employment dispute where the workman-petitioner was dismissed from service for submitting a fake Matriculation Certificate. The dispute culminated in a reference case, which was answered against the workman. The workman challenged the decision through a writ petition, which was dismissed, leading to the intra-court appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the workman had committed fraud by submitting a fake certificate and that the dismissal was justified. The court also emphasized that sympathy or sentiment cannot be a ground for passing an order when a legal right is not established.
Issues: The issues revolved around the workman's fraudulent submission of a fake Matriculation Certificate, the consideration of compassion in employment decisions, and the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that fraud vitiates every solemn act and emphasized that sympathy cannot override the lack of a legal right. It also clarified the scope of judicial review under Article 226, stating that it extends to correcting errors of jurisdiction and not findings of fact.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the intra-court appeal, upholding the decision that the workman's dismissal was justified due to the fraudulent submission of a fake Matriculation Certificate.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 12.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(L) No.4509 of 2009, whereby, the learned Single Judge has not interfered with the award passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.I, Dhanbad in Reference Case No.3 of 1997 dated 25.06.2009, by which, the reference has been answered against the workman-petitioner/appellant herein.
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:-
The writ petitioner/appellant was appointed in the year 1992 as Fitter under Clause 9.4.2. under National Coal Wage Agreement (N.C.W.A.) after death of his father, namely, Akbar Khan, who was a permanent employee in Sijua Area in the office of M/s B.C.C.L. The respondents came to know that the appointment so made is based upon the Matriculation Certificate, which is not genuine, therefore, the decision was taken to initiate a domestic enquiry in which charge-sheet has been submitted for submission of fake certificate by the writ petitioner and he was also put under suspension in the month of February, 1992. The writ petitioner has participated in the domestic enquiry, but the charge of submission of forgery by producing forged Matriculation Certificate has been found to be proved. The competent authority of the respondents on acceptance of the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer based upon the enquiry proceeding, has decided to dismiss the writ petitioner from service and accordingly the writ petitioner was dismissed from service w.e.f. 22/23.07.1992. The writ petitioner had raised the dispute and finally the same has been culminated into reference to the effect that whether the action of the Management of Moonidih Project of M/s B.C.C.L. in dismissing the writ petitioner from service is justified? If not, to what relief is the said workman entitled. The said reference has been numbered as Reference Case No.3 of 1997. The learned Tribunal has proceeded to adjudicate and to answer the reference finally and the reference has been answered against the workman by holding that the dismissal of the workman from service is justified by passing the award on 25.06.2009. The writ petitioner being aggrieved with the said award, has challenged the same by way of filing writ petition being W.P.(L) No.4509 of 2009, but the same has been dismissed vide order/judgment dated 12.02.2021, against which, the present intra-court appeal has been preferred.
3. Mr. M.K. Laik, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that even accepting that the reference has been answered against the writ petitioner refusing to interfere with the order of dismissal from service of Fitter which the writ petitioner has got under the provision of National Coal Wage Agreement, but taking into consideration the very object and intent of N.C.W.A., the writ petitioner ought to have been considered by appointing in other cadre in which the Matriculation Certificate is not the essential criteria. Such submission has been made on the ground of compassion and taking the spirit of the National Coal Wage Agreement.
4. Per contra, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BCCL has submitted that there is no question of adjudication of the issue on compassion, since, herein the writ petitioner was provided appointment under the provision of the National Coal Wage Agreement by keeping the object and intent of the aforesaid Agreement into consideration as Fitter on accepting his eligibility criteria which he has presented to be of Matriculation. The appointment to the post of Fitter had been provided but subsequent thereto it has been known to the respondents that the writ petitioner was not Matriculate and he has tried to mislead by producing false certificate. The Management has decided to
Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors.; reported in [(2013) 9 SCC 363]
Ebrahim Aboobaker v. Custodian General of Evacuee Property New Delhi
Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque
Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh
Madurantakam Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. S. Viswanathan
Nagendra Nath v. Commr. Of Hills Division
Rengali Hydro Electric Project & others v. Giridhari Sahu & others; [(2019) 10 SCC 695]
Sawarn Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.; [(1976) 2 SCC 868
Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. UT
Veerappa Pillai v. Raman and Raman Ltd.’ AIR 1952 SC 192 (M)
The main legal point established in the judgment is that fraud vitiates every solemn act, and sympathy cannot override the lack of a legal right.
Fraud vitiates everything, and a subsequent action cannot validate an action that was not lawful at its inception. If an order is bad in its inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage.
Writ of Certiorari is intended to correct jurisdictional excesses.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in disciplinary proceedings, as well as the principles governin....
The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal can only be challenged if it suffers from perversity or there is a jurisdictional error.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.