Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2050 (JHR)

Central Coalfields Limited v. Sarlu Mahato

2018-09-12

RAJESH SHANKAR, RAJESH SHANKAR

body2018
JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the award dated 29.01.2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’) in Reference No. 28/2006 whereby the learned Tribunal has held that the action of the petitioner-management in terminating the respondent-workman from the service of M/S Central Coalfields Limited w.e.f. 14.01.2005 is illegal and unjustified and hence the respondent-workman is entitled to reinstatement with 50% back wages and concomitant benefits. The learned Tribunal has further directed the petitioner-management to implement the award within one month from the date of receipt of the same following its publication in the Gazette of India. 2. The respondent-workman was terminated from the service of the petitioner-management w.e.f. 14.01.2005 on the ground of habitual absenteeism from duty. An industrial dispute was raised against the said termination which was finally referred by the Government of India, through Ministry of Labour under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad for adjudication having the following terms of reference:- “Whether the action of the Management of Kuju Colliery of M/S CCL to terminate Shri Sarlu Mahto, PRW, from the service of the company w.e.f. 14.01.2005 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?” 3. The learned Tribunal, vide order dated 10.10.2011, held the domestic enquiry to be fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and thus the said reference was heard on merit. After considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned Tribunal came to a finding that though reasonable evidence was available on record that the respondent-workman was not absent from 08.09.2002, rather he was on sick leave, yet the charge sheet was served on him leading to his dismissal from service. The learned Tribunal also took note of the fact that the respondent-workman, who was a permanent employee of Kuju Colliery of M/S CCL as a piece rated worker, was a Tuberculosis patient and was referred to the Central Hospital, Naisarai for treatment on 19.09.2002 as an outdoor patient, as admitted by Dr. S. Kumar, Sr. Medical Officer, before the enquiry officer on 15.07.2004. S. Kumar, Sr. Medical Officer, before the enquiry officer on 15.07.2004. The said doctor further admitted before the enquiry officer that the respondent-workman got treatment as an outdoor patient and was also hospitalized in the said hospital on 13.12.2002 and remained under treatment till 26.12.2002. Thereafter, having been declared fit for duty, he submitted the papers relating to his medical treatment to the management. During industrial adjudication, R. P. Verma, the management witness, also affirmed the fact that the respondent-workman was on sick leave w.e.f. 08.09.2002, as was noted in the attendance register (Form-C). 4. On perusal of the copy of the charge sheet served on the respondent-workman, which has been annexed as Annexure-8 to the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, it appears that the respondent-workman was departmentally proceeded for his unauthorized absence from 08.09.2002. However, the very basis of initiation of the departmental proceeding against the respondent-workman gets falsified by the fact that in the attendance register (Form-C), it was clearly mentioned that the respondent-workman was on sick leave w.e.f. 08.09.2002. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the respondent-workman was a habitual absentee as on previous occasions also, he was found absent from duty. In the year 1999, he absented from duty twice and the charge sheets were issued to him in this regard. However, taking lenient view, he was allowed to resume his duty on 29.01.1999. In the year 2001 also he absented from 02.06.2001 to 10.07.2001. Despite his habit of regular absenteeism, he was lastly allowed to resume his duty with strict warning on 16.11.2002. The said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted for the reason that it is not the case of the petitioner-management that pursuant to any formal disciplinary proceeding against the respondent-workman for his habitual absenteeism, he was earlier inflicted some minor punishment. Rather, no such evidence was adduced during the industrial adjudication that the respondent-workman was ever inflicted any punishment whatsoever arising out of a disciplinary proceeding against him. As regards the charge sheet dated 01.08.2003 giving rise to the present industrial dispute, the respondent-workman was shown in unauthorized absence w.e.f. 08.09.2002 which got falsified by the statement of the Sr. Medical Officer made before the enquiry officer on 15.07.2004. As regards the charge sheet dated 01.08.2003 giving rise to the present industrial dispute, the respondent-workman was shown in unauthorized absence w.e.f. 08.09.2002 which got falsified by the statement of the Sr. Medical Officer made before the enquiry officer on 15.07.2004. In view of the aforesaid facts and materials, the learned Tribunal vide the impugned award dated 29.01.2014, has held that the termination of the respondent-workman from the service of M/S CCL is illegal and unjustified and thus ordered for his reinstatement with 50% back wages and concomitant benefits. 6. It is a settled law that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised with circumspection, if any gross impropriety and perversity is found in the award of the industrial adjudicator. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madurantakam Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. S. Viswanathan reported in (2005) 3 SCC 193 has held as under:- “12. Normally, the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, is the final court of facts in these types of disputes, but if a finding of fact is perverse or if the same is not based on legal evidence the High Court exercising a power either under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution can go into the question of fact decided by the Labour Court or the Tribunal. But before going into such an exercise it is necessary that the writ court must record reasons why it intends reconsidering a finding of fact. In the absence of any such defect in the order of the Labour Court the writ court will not enter into the realm of factual disputes and finding given thereon. A consideration of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge shows that nowhere has he come to the conclusion that the finding of the Labour Court was either perverse or based on no evidence or based on evidence which is not legally acceptable. Learned Single Judge proceeded as if he was sitting in a court of appeal on facts and item after item of evidence recorded in the domestic enquiry as well as before the Labour Court was reconsidered and findings given by the Labour Court were reversed. Learned Single Judge proceeded as if he was sitting in a court of appeal on facts and item after item of evidence recorded in the domestic enquiry as well as before the Labour Court was reconsidered and findings given by the Labour Court were reversed. We find no justification for such an approach by the learned Single Judge which only amounts to substitution of his subjective satisfaction in the place of such satisfaction of the Labour Court.” 8. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned award dated 29.01.2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad in Reference No. 28/2006. 9. The present writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.