Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 904 (JHR)

Indradeo Singh v. Presiding Officer

2002-08-21

TAPEN SEN

body2002
JUDGMENT Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard Mr. T.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.M. Banerjea, assisted by Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the award dated 24th February, 1994 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 73 of 1990 whereby and whereunder he was answered the reference in the following terms :-- "The action of the management of South Tisra Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Indradeo Singh, Dumper Operator (Trainee) from service with effect from 4.10.1988 is justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief in this regard." 3. In other words, the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad has confirmed and approved the dismissal of the petitioner from service with effect from 4.10.1988. 4. However, on a plain reading of paragraphs 22 and 23, this Court is of the opinion that the punishment from dismissal from service is extremely harsh. Paragraphs 22 and 23 of the award are quoted below :-- "Now coming to the second issue, i.e. adequacy of the punishment, in any other case, the workman could have been held entitled to some leniency in case of some neglect, but that cannot be applied to this case. It appears that this misconduct was committed by the workman unintentionally and without any mala fide intention. But I cannot recommend any leniency in punishment because then he will again go back to the job of Dumper Driver and a Driver with weak reflexes and prone to confusion under some extraordinary circumstance is likely to bring more disaster in future, if again allotted that job. This risk no management can take. Therefore, I do not find that there is anything in the record to interfere with the quantum of punishment. However, since the incident was unintentional, the management may consider the desirability of providing any other job to this workman, except that of a Dumper Driver on humanitarian ground which may be treated as a fresh appointment. This is just by way of advice because this cannot form part of the award that will be rendered." [Italicised by Court]. 5. However, since the incident was unintentional, the management may consider the desirability of providing any other job to this workman, except that of a Dumper Driver on humanitarian ground which may be treated as a fresh appointment. This is just by way of advice because this cannot form part of the award that will be rendered." [Italicised by Court]. 5. In view of the clear findings of the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad to the effect that the misconduct was committed by the workman unintentionally and without any mala fide intention, his presumption to the effect that if he goes back on a job of dumper driver, he was likely to bring more disaster in the future, is an observation based on mere anxiety of the said Presiding Officer. 6. Although at paragraph 23, the Presiding Officer has expressed his desire that the management may consider providing any alternative job treating the same as fresh appointment, it appears that the same has not been considered by the respondent till date. 7. This Court directs, taking into consideration the observations of the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 recorded at paragraphs 22 and 23, the management to provide any job to the petitioner other than a driver of a machine of any description. Such appointment will be a fresh appointment and the petitioner shall not have any claim in relation to services rendered earlier. To that extent the award of the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal is modified. 8. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed off. However, there shall be no order as to costs.