The court affirmed that a domestic enquiry must adhere to principles of natural justice, including the service of charge-sheets, and modified the award to grant only 50% back wages due to lack of evidence for full wages.

JUDGMENT :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

W.P. (L) No. 2254 of 2011 has been filed challenging the Award dated 29.06.2010 (Annexure-11) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. I, Dhanbad in Reference No. 167 of 1997 whereby the Reference has been answered in favour of the concerned workman by directing reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential benefits. A further prayer has been made challenging order dated 06.06.2005 (Annexure-9) on preliminary issue whereby the learned Tribunal held that the domestic enquiry was not fair.

2. Cr. M.P. No. 2316 of 2014 has been filed for quashing of the order dated 16.05.2013 passed in G. Case No. 46/2013 by A.C.J.M. Hazaribagh whereby the cognizance has been taken under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 and summons have been issued against the petitioners now the case is pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh.

W.P. (L) No. 2254 of 2011

3. Vide Order dated 19.09.1997, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-sec. (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal:

“Whether the action of the management of Tapin North Colliery of CCL, in dismissing Sh. Ranjendra Dubey, Clerk Grade-II from the services of the company w.e.f. 27-3-1993 is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?”

4. The reference was decided in favour of the workman and the workman has been directed to be reinstated in service from the date of his dismissal with full back wages and other consequential benefits within a period of 30 days from the date of the award.

Arguments of the petitioner (management)

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the domestic enquiry was held to be unfair vide order dated 06.06.2005. The order dated 06.06.2005 (Annexure-9) is also under challenge along with the final award.

6. After order dated 06.06.2005, the management examined one witness on merits, and no further evidence was led by the workman.

7. The allegation against the workman was of unauthorized absence from 01.12.1990 till 07.01.1993. The workman was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and was terminated vide letter dated 27.03.1993.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the said order, the learned Court has recorded that the management had examined Priya Ranjan Kumar as a management’s representative but the petitioner was not granted an opportunity to cross-examine Priya Ranjan Kumar. He submits that Priya Ranjan Kumar was not the management witness but he was the Presenting Officer on the part of the management and, therefore, there was no question of his cross-examination as management witness. He further submits that the enquiry report is on record which indicates that there were only two witnesses and the workman in his evidence before the learned Court has admitted that he had cross-examined both the witnesses though in the initial two days when the witnesses were examined, the workmen did not appear.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in absence of the workman, the witnesses of the management were examined but upon his appearance, he was given an opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses. He submits that in such circumstances, the impugned order holding that the enquiry was not fair and proper, calls for interference as the finding is perverse.

10. The learned counsel has referred to the written statement filed on behalf of the workman and has submitted that the workman has admitted his absence from duty at least from 27.07.1991 to 09.02.1993 and he claimed that he was facing some medical problem. The workman had also claimed that he informed the management about his medical condition and prayed for sick leave vide letters dated 27.11.1991, 27.09.1992, 28.09.1992 and 28.12.1992. It has been stated by the workman in his