After upholding domestic enquiry as fair under Section 11A, Tribunal cannot re-appreciate evidence or act as appellate body; confined to punishment proportionality. Jurisdictional error where contradictory findings made without fresh proof opportunity.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the Management of M/s Central Coal Fields Limited (CCL) seeking to quash the award dated 23/11/2011 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Reference No. 279 of 2000. By this award, the Tribunal directed the reinstatement of the Respondent – Workman, Dasrath Gope, with 50% back wages from the date of his dismissal until his reinstatement, along with all consequential benefits.

Factual Background:

3. The facts of the case are in a narrow compass. The Respondent, Shree Dasrath Gope, was allegedly appointed as a Trainee in Category 1 by an appointment letter dated 10/13/1995 under the Land Loser Scheme. He represented himself as the grandson of Sahdeo Kurmi, the landowner whose property was acquired by CCL for mining. However, the Management later discovered that the Respondent had entered service by providing incorrect information and committing fraud, as he was not related to Sahdeo Kurmi. In fact, Sahdeo Kurmi’s son, Sohrai Kurmi, had already been appointed in exchange for the land acquired by CCL through another appointment letter dated 02/12/1995.

4. Following this discovery, the Petitioner served a charge sheet dated 08/10/1997 to the Respondent, seeking his explanation. In his response, the Respondent denied being appointed under the Land Loser Scheme. He claimed that his name was sponsored by the local employment exchange and that he underwent the selection process, which included a written examination and interview, after which he was found eligible and selected for employment as a trainee. He denied any fraudulent act or misconduct that would warrant disciplinary action.

5. The Management conducted a domestic enquiry, and the disciplinary authority, after supplying a copy of the enquiry report and considering the finding of guilt in the enquiry, dismissed the Respondent from service. Subsequently, the Respondent raised an industrial dispute, and conciliation proceedings were undertaken. The resolution through conciliation efforts failed, leading to the following reference under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:

“Whether the action of the Management of Central Coal Fields Limited, P.O. Kathara, District Bokaro to dismiss Shree Dasrath Gope, workman category 1 from service is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled?”

6. The Tribunal registered this reference as Reference No. 279 of 2000. Given that the dispute involved termination for alleged misconduct, the validity of the Management’s enquiry was taken up as a preliminary issue. The Tribunal followed the proper procedure by first determining whether the domestic enquiry was fair and proper.

Tribunal’s Proceedings and Findings:

7. By order dated 08/03/2011, the Tribunal found the domestic enquiry to be fair and proper. After reaching this conclusion, it obviously did not call for any additional evidence. The Tribunal then purportedly, exercised its jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, at this point, rather than evaluating the proportionality of the punishment, the Tribunal comprehensively re-appreciated the evidence from the enquiry and concluded that the punishment order was illegal and unsustainable. Thus, despite holding the enquiry to b