IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
DEEPAK ROSHAN
Management of Usha Martin Limited – Appellant
Versus
Dharmendra Kumar, Son Of Chandrika Singh – Respondent
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, withou
State of Haryana & Anr. v. Rattan Singh
Mahindra & Mahindra Limited vs. N.B Narawade
Hombe Gowda Educational Trust vs. State of Karnataka
Management of Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited vs. M. Mani
J.D Jain Vs. Management of State Bank of India
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 pro....
The court reinforced that adherence to natural justice is essential in domestic enquiries, and failure to comply can invalidate disciplinary actions.
The absence of a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses renders a disciplinary enquiry invalid, and charges not substantiated by evidence cannot warrant dismissal.
The Labour Court must first determine the validity of domestic enquiry before evaluating evidence presented for dismissal in industrial disputes.
The principles of natural justice require a fair enquiry process where all relevant documents are made available to the workman, and failure to do so invalidates disciplinary actions.
The court emphasized the distinct nature of proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) and Section 10 of the I.D. Act, and the limited jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India....
Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to reappraise the evidence and come to its conclusion enures to it when it has to adjudicate upon the dispute referred to it in which an employer relies on the findings r....
The court established that a fair domestic enquiry and proportional punishment for habitual unauthorized absence from duty are essential under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the burden o....
Point of Law : Satisfaction under Section 11-A, about the guilt or otherwise of the workman concerned, is that of the Tribunal. It has to consider the evidence and come to a conclusion one way or oth....
Stage for interference under Section 11-A by the Tribunal is reached only when it has to consider the punishment after having accepted the finding of guilt recorded by an employer.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.