In disciplinary matters, courts may interfere with an employer's decision when the enquiry stands on 'no evidence' or is clearly perverse, as the punishment must be proportionate to the established misconduct. Administrative deference does not override the duty to correct manifest failures of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.

1. The writ application has been preferred challenging an award dated 20.05.2024, passed by the Learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Asansol, in reference Case No.18 of 2019.

2. Vide the impugned order the Learned Tribunal directed as follows:-

“that the Industrial Dispute is allowed on contest against management of ECL. The order of dismissal dated 13.03.2015 issued by the Assistant Personnel Manager (IC) of Kajora Area, ECL on approval of the General Manager of Kajora Area is hereby set aside. The management of ECL is directed to reinstate Sunil Majhi in the service of the company within one (1) month from the date of communication of the Award. Let an award be drawn up in the light of my above findings. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.”

3. Being aggrieved the writ application has been preferred challenging the said award.

4. The petitioner’s case in short is that the Petitioner Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL) employed Respondent No. 4, Shri Sunil Majhi, as a General Mazdoor under Kajora Area. On 22.11.2014. While on duty at Madhabpur Colliery during the night shift, Respondent No. 4 committed serious misconduct by jumping into Pit Shaft No. 2 after crossing the pit fencing, resulting in disruption of mine operations and posing serious safety risks in an active mine area. He thereby violated Regulation 38(1)(a), 38(1)(b) and 38(3)(a) of the COAL MINES REGULATIONS , 1957 read with Clause 26.3, 26.15, 26.22 and 26.26 of the Certified Standing Orders of ECL.

5. A domestic enquiry was conducted in compliance with the principles of natural justice, where Respondent No. 4 admitted his misconduct. The charges were duly proved. Considering the gravity of the misconduct and his past disciplinary record, the competent authority dismissed him from service by order dated 13.03.2015. Respondent No. 4 did not file any departmental appeal within the stipulated period.

6. More than one year later, Respondent No. 4 submitted a mercy petition merely seeking sympathetic relief without raising any grievance regarding the enquiry. Subsequently, a union espoused the dispute and the matter was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol (CGIT) as Ref. Case No. 18 of 2019.

7. By the impugned Award dated 20.05.2024 (notified on 24.06.2024), the CGIT illegally set aside the dismissal and directed reinstatement without back wages.

8. It is stated that the Tribunal completely ignored the proved misconduct, statutory safety violations, the admission made during enquiry, and his past record, and interfered with the penalty, solely based on misplaced sympathy. Such interference exceeds the jurisdiction vested in an Industrial Adjudicator and is contrary to settled principles regarding judicial review over disciplinary action.

9. The petitioner by way of filing written notes has argued that by an order dated 25.11.2014, the Petitioner issued chargesheet to the Respondent No. 4 charging him for attempt to commit suicide by jumping into the 2nd no. Pit Shaft of Madhabpur Colliery by crossing the pit fencing by which he endangered himself and other persons and for other misconduct as mentioned in the said chargesheet.

10. He has also been charged for violation of Coal Mines Regulation, 1957 under clause 38 (i) (a), neglect