Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 980 (JHR)

Deoraj Bartiya v. Central Coalfields Ltd.

2002-09-06

TAPEN SEN

body2002
JUDGMENT Tapen Sen, J. 1. In this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.3.1994 passed by the respondent No. 2 (Additional Chief Mining Officer/Project Officer) by which the services of the petitioner has again been terminated on the same grounds of impersonation notwithstanding the award of the Industrial Tribunal setting aside the earlier order of termination and reinstating the petitioner with full back wages after giving findings contrary to the charges levelled. 2. According to the petitioner, after having been appointed on 1.5.1974, all of a sudden in the year 1978, the respondents started issuing information to different persons including the petitioner and gave a general notice to the effect that it had come to the knowledge of the management that there had been large scale impersonation and therefore, a committee had been constituted in order to ascertain the bona files of individual workmen including the petitioner. 3. On the basis of a report of the said committee, some workmen including the petitioner were discontinued from service vide dated 28.2.1981 as contained at Annexure-1 to the writ application. The petitioner has stated that neither any opportunity was given to the petitioner nor to the others nor was the report of the enquiry committee given to them. The petitioner has further stated that being aggrieved, he and others raised an industrial dispute which was ultimately referred to adjudication and finally by an award dated 30.8.1985 as contained at Annexure-2, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 passed an award in Reference Case No. 94 of 1982, whereby and where under it was held that he action of the management in terminating the services of the concerned workmen was not justified and accordingly the said concerned workmen including the petitioner (Sl No. 16 thereof) was held to be deemed to be continuing in service and entitled (o back wages and other consequential benefits since the dates he and others were stopped from their work. 4. The petitioner has stated that there were-other reference including Reference No. 60/64 of 1981 and 132 of 1986 and in each of the references, the concerned workmen therein were ordered to be reinstated with back wages. 4. The petitioner has stated that there were-other reference including Reference No. 60/64 of 1981 and 132 of 1986 and in each of the references, the concerned workmen therein were ordered to be reinstated with back wages. Petitioner has stated that inspitie thereof and only because the petitioner happened to be a member of a Union which had filed a compliant against the Respondents, that he was singled out and, in order to harass him, a charge-sheet dated 30.9.1988 was issued asking him to show cause why disciplinary action should be taken against him for having committed acts which amount to giving false information in relation to his name. The aforementioned charge-sheet is Annexure-3 to the writ application and the petitioner has stated that the said charge-sheet was for the same charges of impersonation which had already been decided on 30.8.1985 in Reference Case No. 94 of 1982 vide Annexure-2 to the writ application. Thereafter, the petitioner and others filed CWJC No. 2204 of 1988 (R) challenging the charge-sheet and the departmental proceeding. By order dated 23.1.1989 a Division Bench adopted the reasoning given in an identical case, namely, C.W.J.C. No. 2107 of 1988 (R) delivered on 10.10.1988 and disposed off the writ application. The aforementioned two orders dated 23.1.1989 passed in CWJC No. 2204 of 1988 (R) and CWJC No. 2107 of 1988 (R) are Annexures-4 and 4/1 to the writ application. 5. The order as contained at Annexure 4/1, i.e., the order passed in CWJC No. 2107 of 1988 (R) therefore, assumes significance inasmuch as one of the most important points argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that in view of the said order of the Division Bench, the Respondents could not have reinitiated the matter again. I fact what the Division Bench said is necessary to be reproduced hereinbelow: In the circumstances of the case as the matter now stands, it will be advisable for the petitioner to file his show cause with reference to the charge and bring it to the notice of the Management, the award of the tribunal as contained in Annexure-3, and that the Management ought not to proceed further again in view of the finding of the tribunal in his favour. If such a stand is taken by the petitioner, it will be appropriate for the management that before proceeding further, it considers that aspect of the matter and first decide what was the finding of the tribunal and if the finding was in favour of the petitioner whether the management will proceed further and if it proceed, it will proceed further in accordance with law. With this observation, the application is disposed of. 6. Thus from a perusal of the aforementioned observation passed in the case of Dhaneshwr Mistry CWJC No. 2107 of 1988 (R), which was adopted in the case of Somaru Ram and others (CWJC No. 2204 of 1988 (R)) in which the petitioner claims to have been a party, it will be apparent that the petitioners were directed to file their show cause and brig it to the notice of the management to the effect that in view of the award of the tribunal, the management should not proceed any further. It was observed by the Division Bench that if such a stand was taken then it would be appropriate for the management to consider this aspect of the matter and then first decide what was the findings of the tribunal and if the findings were in favour of the petitioner, whether the management would state like to proceed and if it decide to do so, then it must be in accordance with law. According to the petitioner, after the aforementioned order was passed, the management issued a charge-sheet dated 13.7.1991 and considering the explanation of the petitioner and without furnishing a copy of the enquiry report, concluded the proceeding ex parte and by order dated 24.3.1994 terminated the services of the petitioner v, Js Annexure-6 appended to the writ application. 7. It appears that a specific stand was taken by the writ petitioner at Paragraph 30 to the effect that the enquiry report inspite of demand for the same had not been supplied to the petitioner. This statement has not been controverted by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. In that view of the matter, the order of punishment cannot be sustained. It is, accordingly, set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondents to proceed afresh after giving a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner. 8. This statement has not been controverted by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. In that view of the matter, the order of punishment cannot be sustained. It is, accordingly, set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondents to proceed afresh after giving a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner. 8. Before concluding, it would be appropriate to mention at this stage that the respondents, before proceeding further, must comply with the order dated 10.10.1988 passed in CWJC No. 2107 of 1988 (R), because it appears to this Court that, perhaps, the Management has not complied with the directions of the Division Bench which made it clear that if the concerned workmen took a stand that the management should not proceed on account of the award then the management was required to first give a decision vis a vis the award was in relation to the actual findings given therein and if it was found that the award was in fact in favour of the petitioner, then the management was required to give a decision as to whether, notwithstanding thereof, it would still like to proceed further. In other words both the decisions of the management were required to be reasoned orders in accordance with law and both were necessary to be communicated to the concerned persons. This is the only logical interpretation of the order dated 10.10.1988 and this appears to have been totally bye-passed by the management. The Respondent/Management are now directed to strictly comply and adhere to the observations made above and act in accordance with law. 9. With the aforementioned observations and directions this writ application is allowed and impugned order of termination is set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs.