When an employer relies on a domestic enquiry to justify termination, the tribunal must first adjudicate the validity of the enquiry as a preliminary issue. Proceeding to the merits without resolving this threshold question renders the final award legally unsustainable and subject to being set aside.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. A. Jahid, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Ms. A. Begum, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1.

2. The present writ petition was filed assailing the Award dated 20.01.2025 passed in Reference Case No.04/2012 by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal at Dibrugarh, whereby the learned Industrial Tribunal passed an Award opining that the dismissal of the workman, namely Shri Keshab Borah was not justified and directions were issued that the workman be reinstated to his service with full back wages from the date of his dismissal.

3. Before dealing with the facts, this Court finds it very pertinent to observe that when the instant writ petition was taken up by this Court on 22.05.2026, a submission was made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1 to the effect that the Respondent No.1 had crossed the age of superannuation. Today, the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submitted that the said submission was made without concurring with the workman and also without taking note of the facts.

4. This Court also finds it relevant to observe that based on the said submission which was made on 22.05.2026, this Court opined that the issue involved in the present proceedings was limited as to whether the Respondent No.1 would be entitled to back wages. However, taking into account the materials on record, as the Respondent No.1 i.e. the workman would attain the age of superannuation only on 28.02.2029, the issue pertaining to reinstatement with back wages is required to be adjudicated.

BRIEF FACTS:

5. On 24.10.2007, Shri Keshab Borah, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the workman’) was issued a Show Cause Notice alleging inter alia that the workman with the intention of personal gains entered Haziras (names in master roll) of 22 temporary workmen. The Show Cause Notice further alleged that the workman tried to make payment to those temporary workmen, but was not successful. Allegations were leveled against the workman that on 02.10.2007 at 1:40 PM, the workman created an unruly scene in the Garden Assistant Manager's Office and kicked the permanent worker Shri Minto Das to vent out his frustration. It was alleged that the workman entered the Deputy Manager's Office at 2:15 PM and wanted to know how and when the unpaid balance of bonus payment would be made and while doing so, the workman had broken a glass pane in the Office of the Head Clerk and shouted unparliamentary words. Further to the said, it was alleged that upon scrutiny of records, it revealed that for the period from 24.03.2007 to 05.10.2007, the workman had authorized payment for a set of temporary workers even though they were not actually working, thus causing loss to the company in terms of financial payment of Rs.88,550/-.

6. The workman, upon receipt of the said Show Cause Notice dated 24.10.2007, replied denying to all allegations made in the said Show Cause Notice.

7. Upon receiving the said reply from the workman, the Manager of the Petitioner Tea Estate being not satisfied, initiated a Domestic Enquiry.

8. The Enquiry Report was submitted on 08.02.2008 holding inter alia that the workman had committed acts of fraud, theft, and dishonesty