The standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is 'preponderance of probabilities', allowing for evidence that is logically probative, and excluding strict adherence to the Indian Evidence Act protocols.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed seeking the quashing and setting aside of the Award dated 29.04.2025, passed in Reference Case No. 06/2021 (Annexure 12 to Writ Petition). Through this Award, the Management has been directed to reinstate the Respondent-workmen in service with 50% back wages and continuity in service. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 14/09/2023 (Annexure 8 of the writ petition), which held that the domestic enquiry conducted into the charges against the respondent, workmen was unfair and improper, primarily on the grounds that outsider witnesses were not permitted by the enquiry officer in support of the delinquent workmen.

3. Chronology of Evidence and Background Facts

(i) During the Covid-19 pandemic, a nationwide lockdown was imposed. However, to ensure industrial productivity, the Government of India relaxed the restrictions for industries and permitted operations to resume from 20/04/2020. The Management issued a letter dated 09/06/2020, by registered post, to the respondent, Dharmendra Kumar, requiring his explanation for continued absence from duties even after 20/04/2020, without prior intimation or permission from his superiors. The petitioner refers to a general notice circulated on 17/04/2020, followed by another notice dated 05/07/2020, requesting all employees and workers to report to duty or contact their department heads/supervisors.

(ii) The respondent submitted his reply dated 14/06/2020, denying the Management’s allegations. He blamed the Management for not contacting him personally or informing him about his rotation duty and shift, and alleged that the show cause notice was a conspiracy against him.

(iii) On 18/06/2020, it is alleged that the respondent was present at Factory Gate No. 3 at around 12:00 PM and raised slogans: “Management Murdabad, Management Chor hai, Maro in salon ko, Management Hosh mein aao.” The Management issued a charge sheet-cum-suspension letter on 19/06/2020 for major misconduct under Clause 23.2.2 of the certified standing orders of M/s Usha Martin Limited, which includes “riotous or disorderly behavior, threatening, intimidating, coercing other employees, assault or threat of assault… affecting company’s discipline.”

(iv) The respondent was asked to submit a written explanation to this charge sheet-cum-suspension letter within 72 hours. Dissatisfied with the explanation provided, the Management constituted a domestic enquiry, in which the workmen participated. The Management examined three witnesses in support of the charges i.e., Shyam Bahadur Gole, Jaswant Pradhan, and Ravindra Singh.

(v) Shyam Bahadur Gole, the security guard, recorded that the workman raised slogans and abused the Management at the factory gate, and he reported the incident to his in-charge, Jaswant Pradhan, by telephone. The other witnesses corroborated the security guard’s account.

(vi) The enquiry report submitted on 02/04/2021 found Dharmendra Kumar guilty of unauthorized absence and disorderly conduct.

(vii) On 06/05/2021, the Petitioner - Management issued an order of punishment, dismissing the workman from service. With cases pending before the Industrial Tribunal at Ranchi, the order noted that an application was being filed before the Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, the approval application was not considered by the Tribunal, which remained vacant fo