Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 221 (JHR)

Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State Of Jharkhand

2010-02-09

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2010
JUDGMENT : D.G.R. Patnaik, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, which is the Management of the Eastern Coalfields Ltd., has assailed the Award dated-01st September, 2003, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal [No. 2], Labour Court, Dhanbad, in Reference Case No. 126 of 1997 whereby the Tribunal has sought to answer the terms of reference against the Management. 3. The concerned workmen, who were the employees under the Management were dismissed from service on the charge that they had assaulted their senior officer, in course of discharge of their duties. Against the order of dismissal, the workmen moved the Calcutta High Court by filing a writ application. A Single Bench of the Calcutta High Court, while disposing of the writ application, quashed the order of dismissal of the concerned workmen with liberty to the Management to initiate a fresh disciplinary proceedings after serving charges on the workmen. The Management, being aggrieved, filed an Appeal against the judgment of the Single Judge. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, upon considering the grounds, affirmed the order of the Single Bench, whereby the order of dismissal was quashed, but had modified the order of the Single Judge by quashing the later portion and directing the Labour Court to decide upon the misconduct of the concerned workmen, instead of, allowing the Management to conduct a fresh enquiry against the workmen. It appears that hereafter, an unusual turn took place in as much as, a fresh reference was made by the Central Government to the Labour Court by order dated-10th November, 1997 in the following terms. Whether the action of the management of Gopinathpur Colliery of ECL in dismissing the service of S/Sh. Muku Singh, Nifikir Pal and Notan Kumar Baisya is legal and justified? If not, to what relief are these workmen entitled? It appears that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court, one of the workmen, namely, Nifikir Pal had retired on 31.01.2002 and the other workman, namely, Notan Kumar Baisya died on 02.09.2003. The Labour Court had though considered the terms of reference but acting upon the directions given by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, had proceeded to enquire and adjudicate upon the misconduct of the concerned workmen. In course of the enquiry conducted by it, the Labour Court examined the witnesses adduced by the parties. The Labour Court had though considered the terms of reference but acting upon the directions given by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, had proceeded to enquire and adjudicate upon the misconduct of the concerned workmen. In course of the enquiry conducted by it, the Labour Court examined the witnesses adduced by the parties. As it appears from the impugned Award, the Management had adduced the evidence of only one witness, namely, the Officer, who is claimed to be the victim of the alleged assault made upon him by the workmen. The Labour Court, upon considering the evidences, had recorded its finding that the evidence adduced by the Management, is not sufficient enough to prove the guilt of the workmen and accordingly, had opined that it did not consider it just and proper to hold the concerned workmen guilty of the charges. However, after having recorded the above findings, the Labour Court proceeded to conclude its Award in the following manner: In the result, the following Award is rendered: The action of the management of Gopinathpur Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. In dismissing the services of S/Shri Muku Singh, Notan Kumar Baisya and Nifikir Pal is not legal and justified. Consequently, they should be reinstated in service with full back wages with consequential relief and continuity of service from the date of the order of dismissal. However, Management will be at liberty to adjust the suspension allowance given to concerned workmen in computing their back wages. A further direction was given in the Award to the Management to implement the Award within three months from the date of publication of the Award in the Gazette of India. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned Award inter alia, on two grounds: (i) That the Reference itself, was bad, in as much as, since the order of dismissal stood already quashed by the judgment of the Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court and confirmed by the Division Bench of the same Court, the matter could have been referred for adjudication by the terms of reference. (ii) The Labour Court, in the concluding portion of the Award, has also erred in making an observation sought to be binding upon the petitioner-Management, to the effect that the action of the Management in dismissing the services of the concerned workmen is not legal and justified. 5. Mr. (ii) The Labour Court, in the concluding portion of the Award, has also erred in making an observation sought to be binding upon the petitioner-Management, to the effect that the action of the Management in dismissing the services of the concerned workmen is not legal and justified. 5. Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned Counsel for the petitioner would argue that since under the directions made by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, the Labour Court was to act as an Enquiry Officer, the most it could have done, was to record its findings in respect of the charges and then refer such findings to the Disciplinary Authority of the Respondents to consider and take an appropriate decision thereon. Learned Counsel explains further, that since the very reference of the dispute to the Labour Court was bad, therefore, the findings recorded by the Labour Court in the impugned Award is not legal and cannot be treated as binding upon the petitioner-Management. 6. Per contra, Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned Counsel for the Respondent-workmen, would submit that the order of summary dismissal of the concerned workmen was rightly set aside by the Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court but instead of complying with the directions contained in the order, the Management, choose to prefer an appeal against the order of the Single Judge. The Division Bench had also affirmed the order of the Single Judge, whereby the order of dismissal of the workmen was quashed. Learned Counsel would submit further, that the Labour Court has merely acted in accordance with the directions given by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and has recorded its finding in respect of the alleged misconduct of the workmen and therefore, merely because some further observations have been recorded in the Award, this in itself, would not render the Award as illegal or improper. Learned Counsel adds further, that since the Labour Court, vide its impugned Award, has declared that the misconduct against the concerned workmen has not been proved and therefore, the benefits of the consequences, thereof, in the light of the earlier quashing of the order of dismissal, has to be given by the Management to the concerned workmen. 7. Learned Counsel adds further, that since the Labour Court, vide its impugned Award, has declared that the misconduct against the concerned workmen has not been proved and therefore, the benefits of the consequences, thereof, in the light of the earlier quashing of the order of dismissal, has to be given by the Management to the concerned workmen. 7. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the impugned Award, I find that notwithstanding the fact that the dispute has been referred to it for adjudication in terms of the reference, yet the Labour Court has proceeded to act in accordance with the directions contained in the order of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and conducted an enquiry in order to assess as to whether the misconduct as alleged against the workmen stands proved. 8. From the findings recorded by the Labour Court, it appears that the Labour Court did not agree to rely upon the testimony of the solitary witness adduced by the Management. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argues in this context that this is a palpable error on the part of the Labour Court, considering the fact that even though only one witnesses was examined but the witness was himself the victim of the assault, who had sustained injuries and he has fully corroborated the charges against the workman. 9. In this context, I have scrutinized the findings of the Labour Court, and observe that the Labour Court has assigned reasons for not placing implicit reliance on the testimony of the witness examined by the Management and has recorded that in absence of any corroboration to the testimony of the witness, which ought to have been produced by the Management, it is not in a position to place reliance on the testimony of the solitary witness. 10. The findings recorded by the Labour Court, would only affirm that there was no material either to justify the dismissal of the concerned workmen or to deny them the benefits of their service. The order of dismissal, having been quashed and such order having remained final, the Management was liable to follow the further course of action by way of reinstating the dismissed workmen in service and the concerned workmen had certainly the right to demand such reinstatement. The order of dismissal, having been quashed and such order having remained final, the Management was liable to follow the further course of action by way of reinstating the dismissed workmen in service and the concerned workmen had certainly the right to demand such reinstatement. The observations recorded in Para 8 of the impugned Award has to be treated only as affirmations of the obligations of the Management after the order of dismissal was quashed. 11. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any material to interfere with the findings recorded by the Labour Court in the impugned Award. This application is disposed of accordingly, with an observation that upon the representation made by or on behalf of the concerned workmen, the Management shall consider their prayer for all the consequential benefits of reinstatement and take an appropriate decision thereon by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within three months from the date of receipt of the representation and shall communicate such decision to the workmen/their legal representatives.