IMPORTANT POINT
The necessity of conducting a fair domestic inquiry and the implications of procedural irregularities, such as the non-supply of inquiry reports, in determining the justifiability of dismissal under the Industrial Disputes Act.

ORDER :

1. The instant appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against order dated 07.09.2016 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (L) No. 5556 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the award answering the reference dated 06.10.1998 holding the order of dismissal of the workman to unjustified, has been upheld.

2. At the outset, it needs to refer herein that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.10.2018 directed to issue notice upon the respondents, who are legal heirs of deceased-workman, both under ordinary process and registered post. The notice was returned un-served with the endorsement ‘addressee left’. Accordingly, vide order dated 03.12.2018 fifteen days’ time was granted for substituted service. The Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 28.01.2019 directed that apart from Newspaper publication, let service be effected following the mode prescribed under Order 5 Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to order dated 28.01.2019 though newspaper publication of the notice was made, which was brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit, but the co-ordinate Bench took note of the fact that since the notice was published in daily newspaper ‘Hindustan’ Dhanbad edition on 26.01.2019 and the respondents are the substituted heirs of the workman and further the paper publication was necessitated due to the report that the respondents had left the place, as such this paper publication is nothing but an eye-wash, and has no meaning in the eyes of law. The newspaper publication of the notice had to be made at the native place of the workman, which address must be available with the appellant. Accordingly, directed for fresh newspaper publication of the notice after ascertaining the permanent address of the deceased-workman concerned, in the daily newspaper having wide circulation at the native place of the workman.

3. Pursuant thereto, supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of State but the supplementary affidavit was found to be not in full compliance of order dated 06.01.2020, as would appear from order dated 16.03.2020. Accordingly, time was granted to file fresh supplementary affidavit in this regard.

4. Accordingly, the Co-ordinate Bench taking note of the fact that in spite of substituted mode of service through paper publication since none appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 5, who are the legal heirs and successors of the deceased-workman, appointed Mr. Pradeep Kumar Deomani, the learned counsel as Amicus to argue the matter on behalf of respondents, reserving a right with the respondents to engage a counsel of their choice.

Facts of the case:

5. Brief facts of the case, as per the pleading available on record reads as under.

6. The original respondent-workman was appointed as Gas Helper in the year 1972 in the petitioners’ company. It is alleged that the concerned workman absented on several occasions, as such a charge-sheet was served upon him for willful absence from duty for 35 days without sufficient cause and for negligence in duty. After submission of charge-sheet, the enquiry committee was constituted and in spite of granting several opportunities to the workman to defend his case before the enquiry committee he failed to appear.

7. Later on, although the workman appeared on 23.12.1993 but could not give proper defense to the charge leveled against him. In the domestic enquiry, the charge leveled against the workman was found to be proved. Consequent thereupon vide order dated 11.03.1994 the workman was dismissed from service of the company.

8. After dismissal from service, the workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the appropriate government for adjudication under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as to whether the termination of services of Sri R.B. Bhuiya, 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 reli