SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 2360

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sanjay Prasad, J.
Tata Steel Limited (Earlier known as Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited) - Petitioner
Versus
Sri Bir Bahadur - Respondent
W.P.(L) No. 4676 of 2006
Decided On : 29-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate

Once a domestic enquiry is held to be fair and proper, the adjudicating body cannot re-appreciate evidence, sit in appeal over findings of fact, or review its own interlocutory orders regarding the enquiry's validity while passing the final award.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act - Section 11A - Labour Court jurisdiction - Scope of judicial review regarding domestic enquiry - Once a domestic enquiry is held to be fair, proper, and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, the adjudicating body lacks jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence recorded therein or sit in appeal over the findings of the enquiry officer. The authority is limited to examining the proportionality of punishment. (Paras 44, 49, 50, 52)

(B) Adjudication - Power of review - An adjudicating body is not empowered to review its own previous interlocutory findings or orders, such as a prior determination regarding the validity of a domestic enquiry, while passing the final award. Reversing such findings in the final award constitutes an error of jurisdiction and procedural impropriety. (Paras 55, 56, 57)

Facts of the case:
A worker was found guilty of misconduct involving the theft of organizational property after a domestic enquiry was conducted. Initially, the adjudicating authority passed an interlocutory order ruling that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper. However, in its final award, the authority reconsidered the enquiry proceedings, re-appreciated the evidence, and concluded that the charges were not proved, subsequently setting aside the dismissal. The management challenged this award, asserting that the adjudicating body exceeded its jurisdiction by re-examining the evidence after confirming the validity of the domestic enquiry.

Findings of Court:
The court held that once the adjudicating authority established the validity of the domestic enquiry, it became precluded from evaluating the findings of fact again. By revisiting its prior finding and re-appreciating the evidence, the authority acted beyond its mandate, effectively sitting in appeal over the enquiry findings, which is impermissible in law.

Issues: Whether an adjudicating authority can re-appreciate evidence and review its own interlocutory findings regarding the validity of a domestic enquiry while adjudicating the final award.

Ratio Decidendi: When the domestic enquiry is adjudged to be fair and legally sound, the adjudicating authority must respect the findings of the enquiry officer and limit its exercise of power to reviewing the quantum of punishment if necessary. The authority cannot review its own interlocutory orders or substitute its own perspective for the findings established during the enquiry.

Result: Petition allowed; the award set aside and the order of dismissal restored.

Table of Content
1. procedural background and judicial history of the writ petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. summary of rival contentions regarding the legality of the labour court award. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. factual substratum involving theft allegations and conduct of domestic enquiry. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
4. jurisdictional limitation of labour court to reappraise evidence after confirming fair domestic enquiry. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 54 , 55)
5. the principle that labour courts cannot review earlier orders or sit in appeal over findings of valid enquiries. (Para 52 , 53 , 56 , 57)
6. final setting aside of the award and restoration of dismissal order. (Para 58 , 59)

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Prasad, J.

This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the Management Company in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the Judgment dated 21.02.2006 (pronounced on 16.03.2006) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No. 20 of 1995 whereby and whereunder the termination of the concerned workman has been held to be not valid and accordingly direction for payment of wages for seventeen months from the date of his termination till his notional date of superannuation with all consequential benefits has been directed to be paid and/or for issuance of such other writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may think just.

2. Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner-Company and Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the Workman- Respondent.

3. It reveals from the ordersheet of this Court that though the above writ application was filed in the year 2006 and on 05.09.2006 notice was issued upon the Respondent by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Narendra Nath Tiwari, as His Lordship then was) of this Court, but requisites were not filed for a long period for a fresh notice and finally on 05.09.2007 time was granted to the petitioner to take steps for service of Notice by peremptory order by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Amareshwar Sahay, as His Lordship then was), then the matter was heard in part on 03.08.2010 by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Pradeep Kumar, as then His Lordship was) of this Court, however, it was fixed on 04.08.2010, but the matter was not placed and then it was placed for the first time on 18.06.2019 before the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar) of this Court. However, the matter was adjourned on 11.06.2019 and 18.06.2019 on the joint prayer of the parties. Even on 24.07.2019 and 20.08.2019 adjournment was taken on behalf of the petitioner and the case was fixed on 29.08.2019. However, the record reveals that thereafter, the case was placed on 08.12.2020 during Covid-19 pandemic period and then on 24.03.2021 this writ petition was admitted by the Co-ordinate bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen) of this Court, however, Notice was issued upon the sole Respondent although the learned counsel for the Respondent had already appeared on several dates as mentioned above. On 24.03.2021 the Impugned Award dated 21.02.2006 passed in Reference Case No. 20 of 1995 was directed not to be given effect to. Thereafter, the matter was placed on 11.06.2024 before the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary) of this Court and the matter was placed on 01.07.2024, however, on 01.07.2024 the Co- ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary) recused herself from hearing this writ petition. Thereafter, this matter was placed before this Court for the first time on 31.07.2024. On that day the learned counsel for both sides have completed their arguments, however, from going through the records of this case it appears that Lower Court Record was not called for by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. This Court has also not called for the Lower Court

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top