A tribunal's interference in disciplinary matters requires solid grounds and should not reassess evidence once the fairness of the domestic enquiry is acknowledged by the employee.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY PRASAD, J.

This present Writ Petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing/setting aside the Award dated 10.04.2015 passed by Sri Kishori Ram, learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.2), Dhanbad, in connection with Reference No. 71 of 2007, whereby the Reference has been decided in favour of the workman-Dr. Vinod Prasad by holding that the workman is entitled to all his five increments with all his financial benefits for the relevant period of his service tenure and further the Management has been directed to implement the Award within a month from the date of its receipt following its publication by Government of India in the Gazette of India.

2. Heard Ms. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bijay Kr. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned Award dated 10.04.2015 passed by Sri Kishori Ram, learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.2), Dhanbad, in connection with Reference No. 71 of 2007 is illegal, arbitrary and fit to be set aside. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal had passed the impugned Award without properly appreciating the case of the petitioner-Bank. It is submitted that the workman Dr. Vinod Prasad (i.e. Respondent no. 2), vide letter dated 19.07.2013 before the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.2), Camp Court, Patna had accepted the domestic enquiry as fair and proper and held in accordance with the principles of natural justice but the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned Award has overlooked the evidences adduced by the petitioner-Bank.

4. It is submitted that three minor punishments were imposed upon the respondent-workman as warning for Charges No. 1, 2 and 3. However, for Charges No. 4, 5 and 6, the punishment of lower stage in scale of pay by two stages with cumulative effect, to lower stage in scale of pay by one stage with cumulative effect, to lower stage in scale of pay by two stages with cumulative effect respectively have been imposed, as the same were necessary to maintain the discipline at peaceful working condition in the Bank. It is further submitted that the Enquiry Report was served upon the petitioner and full opportunity was given to him to defend his case and to adduce his evidence and even second show cause notice was also issued to him and as such, the Labour Court committed grave error while passing the reference in favor of the workman. It is submitted that once the workman has himself admitted by filing the petition on 19.07.2013 that the Domestic Enquiry/Departmental Enquiry was fair and proper then the Tribunal should not have interfered with the finding of fact and cannot act as the Appellate Authority over the finding of the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments which are as follows:-

(i) In the case of Oshiar Prasad and Others versus Employers in relation to Management of Sudamdih Coal Washery of M/s Bharat Cooking Coal Limited, Dhanbad, Jharkhand reported in 2015 (4) SCC 71 ,

(ii) In the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur versus Om Prakash Sharma reported in 2006 (5) SCC 123 ,

(iii) In the case of General Manager (Operations) State Bank of India and Another versus R. Periyasamy reported in 2015