Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.
Chief General Manager, S.E.C.L. v. Chandramani Tiwari
Writ Petition No. 4982 of 2015 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 17.11.2021
(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 227 -- scope of judicial review
-- High Court normally should not exercise power under Art. 227 as appellate Court or re-appreciate evidence and record its findings on contentious points -- only if there is serious error of law or findings suffer from error apparent on record, High Court can certainly quash order -- power of interference to be kept to minimum to ensure public confidence in functioning of Tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court. (2014) 6 SCC 434 followed. [Para 11
(2) Constitution of India -- Arts. 226 and 227 -- scope of judicial review -- enquiry -- High Court should not venture into re-appreciation of evidence or interfere with conclusions in enquiry proceedings if they are conducted in accordance with law, or go into reliability/adequacy of evidence, or interfere if findings are based on some legal evidence, or correct error of fact however grave it may be, or go into proportionality of punishment unless itshocks conscience of Court. (2015) 2 SCC 610 followed. [Para 12
(3) Constitution of India -- Arts. 226 and 227 -- scope of judicial review -- High Court can interfere in its writ jurisdiction only if jurisdictional error is committed by Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal -- it must proceed on basis that Industrial Disputes Act is social welfare legislation. (2016) 15 SCC 701, AIR 1963 SC 1723, (2020) 3 SCC 423, 1999 Supp. (4) SCR 205 and (2011) 4 SCC 584 followed. No.18642 of 2018 decided on 20.2.2019 (All.) referred to. [Para 13
(4) Constitution of India -- Arts. 226 and 227 -- Industrial Tribunal considered entire evidence and material on record -- passed well-reasoned award giving full opportunity of hearing to Management to prove misconduct -- no perversity or jurisdictional lapse so grave so as to call for interference. [Para 15
(5) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -- S. 11A -- back wages -- wrongful termination of service -- reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is normal rule -- however, said rule is subject to rider that while deciding issue of back wages, adjudicating authority or Court may consider length of service, nature of misconduct, financial condition of management and similar other factors. (2013) 10 SCC 324 followed. [Para 18
(6) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -- S. 11A -- back wages -- onus lies on management to specifically plead and prove that employee was gainfully employed and was getting same or substantially similar emoluments. (2013) 10 SCC 324 followed. [Para 19
(7) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -- S.11A -- back wages -- employee/workman not guilty of misconduct or management foisted false charge -- ample justification for award of full back wages -- superior Courts should not interfere merely because there is possibility of forming different opinion on entitlement of employee/workman to get full back wages or management's obligation to pay the same. (2013) 10 SCC 324 followed. [Para 19
(8) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -- S. 11A -- back wages -- enquiry held illegal by Industrial Tribunal -- even after opportunity to prove, management failed to establish misconduct before Tribunal -- clear case of wrongful termination of service -- in case of wrongful/illegal termination of service, wrong doer is the management and sufferer is the employee/workman -- no justification to give premium to management by relieving it of burden to pay full back wages -- reinstatement ordered with 50% back wages -- not unreasonable. [Para 20
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq&227 && U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu dh O;kfIr && lkekU;r% mPp U;k;ky; dks vuq&227 ds v/khu 'kfDr dk iz;ksx vihy U;k;ky; ds :i esa vFkok lk{; dk iquewZY;kadu djus vkSj fookfnr fcanqvksa ij Lo;a ds fu"d"kZ vfHkfyf[kr djus ds fy, ugha djuk pkfg, && fof/k dh xaHkhj xyrh gks ;k fu"d"kZ vfHkys[k ls izdV xyrh ls xzLr gksa] rc gh mPp U;k;ky; fuf'pr :i ls vkns'k vfHk[kafMr dj ldrk gS && vf/kdj.kksa vkSj mPp U;k;ky; ds v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa dh dk;Zi)fr esa tulk/kkj.k dk fo'okl lqfuf'pr djus ds fy, gLr{ksi dh 'kfDr dk iz;ksx de ls de fd;k tkuk gksrk gSA ¼2014½6 ,l lh lh 434 vuqlfjrA¼iSjk 11
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq&226 rFkk 227 && U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu dh O;kfIr && tk¡p && tk¡p dk;Zokgh fof/k vuqlkj dh xbZ gks rks mPp U;k;ky; dks lk{; dk iquewZY;kadu vFkok mlds fu"d"kks± esa gLr{ksi] ;k lk{; dh voyacuh;rk@i;kZIrrk ij euu ugha djuk pkfg,] vFkok fu"d"kZ fdlh fof/kd lk{; ij vk/kkfjr gksa rks gLr{ksi ugha djuk pkfg,] vFkok rF; dh xyrh og fdruh Hkh xaHkhj D;ksa u gks] lgh ugha djuk pkfg,] vFkok naM dh vkuqikfrdrk ij euu ugha djuk pkfg, tc rd fd mlls U;k;ky; dh var'psruk dks vk?kkr ugha igq¡prk gksA ¼2015½2 ,l lh lh 610 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 12
¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq&226 rFkk 227 && U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu dh O;kfIr && mPp U;k;ky; viuh fjV vf/kdkfjrk esa rc gh gLr{ksi dj ldrk gS tc Je U;k;ky;@vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k }kjk vf/kdkfjrk laca/kh xyrh dh xbZ gks && mls bl vk/kkj ij gh dk;Zokgh djuk pkfg, fd vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e lkekftd dY;k.k fo/kku gSA ¼2016½15 ,l lh lh 701] , vkb vkj 1963 ,l lh 1723] ¼2020½3 ,l lh lh 423] 1999 lIyh& ¼4½ ,l lh vkj 205 rFkk ¼2011½4 ,l lh lh 584 vuqlfjrA lfoZl flaxy Ø& 18642 lu~ 2018 fu.khZr fnukad 20&2&2019 ¼byk&½ fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 13
¼4½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq&226 rFkk 227 && vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k us laiw.kZ lk{; vkSj vfHkys[kxr lkexzh ij fopkj fd;k && vopkj lkfcr djus ds fy, izcaèku dks lquokbZ dk iw.kZ volj nsrs gq, ldkj.k vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k &&,slh dksbZ foi;ZLrrk ;k vf/kdkfjrk laca/kh pwd ugha ftlls gLr{ksi vko';d gksA ¼iSjk 15
¼5½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 && /kkjk 11d && fiNyh etnwjh && lnks"k lsok lekfIr && lsok esa fujarjrk vkSj fiNyh etnwjh lfgr iqu% LFkkiu lkekU; fu;e gS && rFkkfi] mDr fu;e bl mifjdk ds v/;/khu gS fd fiNyh etnwjh dk iz'u fofuf'pr djrs le; U;k;fu.kZ;u izkf/kdkjh ;k U;k;ky; lsok dh vof/k] vopkj dh izÑfr] izca/ku dh foÙkh; voLFkk vkSj blh izdkj ds vU; dkjdksa ij fopkj dj ldrk gSA ¼2013½10 ,l lh lh 324 vuqlfjrA¼iSjk 18
¼6½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 && /kkjk 11d && fiNyh etnwjh && fofufnZ"Vr% ;g vfHkokd~ djus vkSj lkfcr djus dk Hkkj izca/ku ij gksrk gS fd deZpkjh ykHkizn :i ls fu;ksftr Fkk rFkk ogh ;k lkjr% leku miyfC/k;k¡ izkIr dj jgk FkkA ¼2013½10 ,l lh lh 324 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 19
¼7½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 && /kkjk 11d && fiNyh etnwjh
&& deZpkjh@deZdkj vopkj dk nks"kh ugha vFkok izca/ku us feF;k vkjksi yxk;k && fiNyh etnwjh fn, tkus ds fy, i;kZIr U;k;kSfpR; && mPprj U;k;ky;ksa dks ek= blfy, gLr{ksi ugha djuk pkfg, fd fiNyh etnwjh izkIr djus dh deZpkjh@deZdkj dh gdnkjh vFkok mls lanÙk djus dh izca/ku dh ck/;rk ds ckjs esa fHkUu jk; xfBr djus dh laHkkouk gSA ¼2013½10 ,l lh lh 324 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 19
¼8½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 && /kkjk 11d && fiNyh etnwjh && tk¡p vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k }kjk voS/k vfHkfu/kkZfjr && lkfcr djus ds volj ds i'pkr~ Hkh izca/ku vf/kdj.k ds le{k vopkj fl) djus esa vlQy && lnks"k lsok lekfIr dk Li"V ekeyk && lnks"k@voS/k lsok lekfIr dh n'kk esa nks"kdrkZ izca/ku gksrk gS vkSj HkksDRk deZpkjh@deZdkj gksrk gS && izca/ku dks iw.kZ fiNyh etnwjh lanÙk djus ds Hkkj ls eqDr dj ykHk fn, tkus dk dksbZ U;k;kSfpR; ugha && iqu%LFkkiu 50izfr'kr fiNyh etnwjh lfgr vknsf'kr && v;qfDr;qDr ughaA ¼iSjk 20
ORDER
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against an award dated 20.10.2014, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as “CGIT”). The CGIT vide impugned award has held that the action of Management of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (in short hereinafter referred to as “Management”), Johila Area, in terminating the services of the respondent (in short hereinafter referred to as “Workman”), is illegal and hence, the management was directed to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and 50% back wages.
2. Brief facts necessary for the decision of the petition are as under:-
(i) The management is one of the subsidiaries company of Coal India Ltd. (A Government of India undertaking) under the Ministry of Coal. The workman was appointed as General Mazdoor, Category-I on 23.8.1983 by the management. The workman was the President of Trade union and had been raising various grievances relating to Union from time to time.
(ii) On 17.2.2000, on account of one incident at mine, two workmen lost their lives. The issue was taken-up at the higher level and complaints were made against some of the responsible officers of the management. Thereupon, the cognizance was taken by the Executive Magistrate, Pali, District-Umaria.
(iii) On 28.11.2000, charge-sheet was given to the workman alleging therein that he was habitual absentee and during September, 1999 to November, 2000, he attended the work only for 46 days and including EL/CL etc., his total presence was 109 days, which is violative under Clauses 26.24 and 26.30 of the Standing Order and, therefore, the same falls within the definition of “Misconduct”.
(iv) The workman replied to the charge-sheet on 28.11.2000/ 9.12.2000 denying all the allegations and he had stated that the attendance shown in the charge-sheet was incorrect. According to him, if the attendance is compared or verified from register Form ‘C’, the same would make it clear that the allegations in the charge-sheet were incorrect. According to him, on account of his wife’s and his own illness, he sought certain leaves without pay and was availing medical facilities. He denied that there was any violation of the Standing Order as alleged in the chargesheet.
(v) Vide memorandum dated 16.12.2000, the management did not find the explanation of the workman as satisfactory and took a decision to proceed with the regular departmental enquiry. On 16.12.2000, Shri K.D. Jain, Mines Superintendent, Pali was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Shri Rizwan, Time Keeper, Birsinghpur Colliery was appointed as Management Representative.
(vi) After an enquiry, on 7.9.2002, the Enquiry officer submitted his report. He concluded that between 6.9.1999 to 26.11.2000, the workman attended the office only for 49 days and has availed 22 days CL/Rest and he could not satisfactorily explain his absence from duty, therefore, the charges were found proved.
(vii) On 10.10.2002, the management supplied copy of the enquiry report to the workman and sought for his explanation.
On 19.10.2002, the workman submitted his explanation. He has alleged certain malafides against S.R. Mishra, Manager and Enquiry Officer on account of some complaints lodged against the said officer. He stated that the enquiry is vitiated on account of not following the principles of natural justice and non production/supply of relevant register etc. and, therefore, the entire matter was required to be re-enquired by the independent enquiry officer.
(viii) Vide order dated 7.12.2002, the management terminated the services of the workman w.e.f. 7.12.2002.
(ix) The workman preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, which was also dismissed vide order dated 22.8.2003.
(x) Eventually on account of the labour dispute, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order dated 13.5.2004 found that an industrial dispute exists between the management and its wor
In cases of wrongful termination, reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages is the standard ruling, subject to specific considerations.
Point of law : The enquiry was held without any basis and complaint and the charges could not be proved by the petitioners in the domestic enquiry as well as before the tribunal on opportunity given.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
