IMPORTANT POINT
The relevance of acquittal in a criminal case to the termination of an employee in an industrial dispute and the interpretation of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.

2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 30.11.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. I, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 03 of 2004, whereby the order of termination passed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “the Management”) in the disciplinary proceeding has been set-aside and the respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the workman”) has been directed to be reinstated in service with effect from 05.02.2003 and a direction has been issued to pay full back wages.

3. The background of the case is that it was alleged that on 02.11.2000, the workman along with his son forcibly entered into the Blasting Room of mines office of Kathara Colliery and tried to get forcibly signed on attendance sheet for 30 days for the month of October, 2000 by Sri A.K. Nandy, S.O.M./Manager, Kathara Colliery. On refusal, the workman along with his son assault the officer namely Sri. A.K. Nandy who suffered injuries. The workman was subjected to disciplinary enquiry as well as a criminal case. The charges were proved in the disciplinary enquiry and the workman was terminated from service. The workman raised industrial dispute and the reference was made to the learned Tribunal. During the pendency of the reference case, the workman was acquitted in the criminal case. The domestic enquiry was held to be fair and proper vide order dated 05.03.2010 passed by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal decided the reference in favour of the workman and was pleased to set-aside order of his termination with a direction upon the Management to give full back wages. The termination order was set-aside only on account of the acquittal of the workman in the criminal case. The award of the learned Tribunal is under challenge in this writ petition.

Arguments of the Management

a. Vide order dated 05.03.2010, the domestic enquiry was held to be fair and proper and thereafter, the matter was posted for hearing on the arguments on merits. The scope of examination before the learned Tribunal was within the purview of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act and once the domestic enquiry was held to be fair and proper, the scope was all the more limited. The learned Tribunal does not sit in appeal to the findings and the decisions taken in the domestic enquiry and the limited scope of enquiry is in connection with any perversity or shockingly disproportionate punishment to the workman concerned.

b. The learned Tribunal has passed the impugned award on the sole ground that the workman was acquitted by the criminal Court. It has been submitted that such approach of learned Tribunal is ex-facie perverse and calls for interference by this Court under writ jurisdiction as the acquittal of the workman by the criminal Court has no bearing in the matter of domestic enquiry, in which the final order was passed after considering the materials which were brought on record in the domestic enquiry. Once a person is found guilty and an order of termination is passed by the Management on the evidences produced in domestic enquiry, subsequent acquittal in the criminal case cannot be taken into consideration to set-aside the order of termination passed after full-fledged enquiry.

c. The disciplinary proceedings are conducted on the principles of ‘preponderance of probabilities’ and criminal case is based on establishment of the case by the prosecution ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’. The order of acquittal of the workman clearly indicates that the incident stood proved even before the criminal Court, but the action of hitting Sri. A. K. Nandy, who was the higher authority of the workman, could not be proved, against the workman but was proved against the son of the workman and as per the incident, all the family members including the workman had come to the office of Sri. A. K. Nandy to give effect to the incident. The learned counsel submits that it is not in di