JUDGMENT : Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. Heard Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Rahul Basak, Advocate. 2. Heard Mr. Saurabh Sagar, AC to SC-III appearing on behalf of the respondent- State of Jharkhand. 3. Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, learned counsel is appearing on behalf of the respondent- SAIL. 4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “For issuance of an appropriate writ or writs, direction or directions, order or orders to set aside the award dated 26.03.2021 (Annx-5) which was pronounced on 04.01.2022 rendered in the Reference Case No. 11/2008 by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City whereby the learned Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City has held that the dismissal of the workman namely Kutubuddin Ansari (now dead) on the allegations of absence from working in Hot Zone against the Charge-sheet No. Pers/W/Co & BPP/COD/022/96-986 dated 15.02.1996 and giving cumulative effect of the charge-sheets of earlier absence which have earlier been dealt with which are not the subject matter of the charge- sheet for which order of punishment of dismissal has been meted out and no such enquiry papers have been filed before the learned Labour Court. However, order of dismissal has been upheld by the learned Presiding Officer holding the dismissal of the workman to be justified and that he is not entitled to any relief or relief(s).” 5. This writ petition has been filed by the wife of the workman challenging the award dated 26.03.2021 (Annexure-5) passed in Reference Case No. 11 of 2008, whereby the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro has answered the reference against the workman namely Kutubuddin Ansari (deceased) and in favour of the respondent management. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present writ petition has been filed by the widow of the workman as there could be some post death and other monetary benefits accruing to her in case the award is set aside and decided in favour of the deceased workman. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charge memo dated 15.02.1996 was issued to the workman for absence of 67 days in a span of 6 months and enquiry was held. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charge memo dated 15.02.1996 was issued to the workman for absence of 67 days in a span of 6 months and enquiry was held. The enquiry officer held the workman not only guilty for 67 days absence but also found that the petitioner was guilty of absence for 140 days during the year 1995 and 132 days in the year 1996 but this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Labour Court which makes the award ex-facie perverse. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the workman has been held guilty of habitual absence from duty without prior permission, but the absence was not willful, rather it was due to his illness supported by medical certificates and applications and therefore, the order of dismissal from service could not be sustained in the eyes of law. 8. He has also submitted that the learned Labour Court heard the case without deciding on the point of fairness of enquiry as a preliminary issue and the case was decided on the preliminary issue and also on merit, at one stroke. 9. The learned counsel has further submitted that the charge of absence without prior permission was for a total period of 67 days and accordingly, the order of punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the charge leveled and proved against the concerned workman (deceased). 10. He submits that the impugned award calls for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being perverse and the punishment being shockingly disproportionate. Findings of this Court. 11. The charge memo dated 15.02.1996 which ultimately led to dismissal of the concerned workman has been placed on record. The charge against the workman was that the workman was in the habit of remaining absent from duty without prior permission and the number of days of absence from duty without permission in a span of 6 months from June 1995 to November 1995 was mentioned as follows: - Month Days of absence 6/95 08 days 7/95 12 days 8/95 14 days 9/95 11 days 10/95 10 days 11/95 12 days 12. Since the concerned workman did not respond to the charge memo, enquiry committee was constituted. Since the concerned workman did not respond to the charge memo, enquiry committee was constituted. The workman appeared before the enquiry committee and was represented by his co-worker and ultimately enquiry report was submitted on 29.07.1997 and the workman was found guilty of charges. However, the enquiry officer also recorded in the enquiry report based on materials produced by the management that the workman remained absent unauthorizedly for total period of 140 days and additionally was on leave for 28 days in the year 1995 and also remained absent unauthorizedly for total period of 132 days in the year 1996. The disciplinary authority issued 2nd show cause notice to the workman but there was no response from the workman and ultimately the dismissal order was issued to the workman vide letter no. 1765 dated 22.11.1997. 13. The order of dismissal was challenged by the workman through the union and ultimately the issue regarding his dismissal was referred to the learned labour court vide notification dated 03.07.2008. The terms of reference are as follows: - “Whether the dismissal of Sri Kutubuddin Ansari Hot Jobman, Staff No. 647745 SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City by the management is justified? If not, then what relief workman is entitled to?” 14. Both the parties had filed their written statement and contested the case before the learned Labour Court and following issues were framed: “i. Whether the reference is maintainable? ii. Whether the domestic enquiry as conducted against the said workman in all fairness abiding by the principles of natural justice? iii. Whether the dismissal of Kutubuddin Ansari, Hot Job man Staff No. 647745, SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City by the management is justified? iv. Whether the said workman is entitled for any relief and if so, in what manner?” 15. During the pendency of the case before the learned Labour Court, the concerned workman expired on 21.01.2009. Since the matter was filed by the Union, the case was decided on merits and evidence of the wife of the concerned workman was recorded. 16. On behalf of the management only two witnesses were examined. The first witness was on the point of enquiry and the 2nd witness was on the merit of the case and as many as 28 exhibits were produced on behalf of the management. 16. On behalf of the management only two witnesses were examined. The first witness was on the point of enquiry and the 2nd witness was on the merit of the case and as many as 28 exhibits were produced on behalf of the management. So far as the workman is concerned, the present petitioner being the wife was examined as witness on merits and she also exhibited numerous documents. 17. It was the specific case on behalf of the workman, as argued before the learned Court, that the report of the enquiry committee was never given to the workman. Further case was that the authority while holding the enquiry had not acted with an independent mind and therefore, the principles of natural justice was violated. The 2nd show-cause notice was not issued prior to the order of dismissal. 18. It was further contended that the charge of unauthorized absence of the workman was not willful action, rather the absence was due to his illness. It was the case of the workman before the learned Labour Court that due to various ailments and occupational disease which he suffered on account of working on hot zone, he was unable to attend his duties. Further specific case of the workman was that he used to keep the management informed about each day of his absence and the workman had submitted all such papers during the course of domestic enquiry in respect of charge-memo dated 15.02.1996 along with medical certificate. It was the case of the workman before the learned Court as per his written statement filed before the learned Court, that neither any charge sheet nor any information letter by postal dak was received by the workman and that the workman sent the application by registered post for each absence. It was also stated by the workman in his written statement that the documents, postal receipt, fitness certificate of B.G.H. and relevant documents shall be put up before the court along with the list of documents. 19. The learned Labour Court considered the materials on record. With respect to the evidence of the workman, it has been specifically mentioned that only one witness namely Saikul Bibi (the petitioner) has been examined on merits and she deposed that regarding the dismissal of her husband she had no knowledge. 20. The learned Labour Court decided issue nos. (ii) and (iii) vide paragraph no. With respect to the evidence of the workman, it has been specifically mentioned that only one witness namely Saikul Bibi (the petitioner) has been examined on merits and she deposed that regarding the dismissal of her husband she had no knowledge. 20. The learned Labour Court decided issue nos. (ii) and (iii) vide paragraph no. 14 of the impugned judgment and inter alia recorded that it was an admitted case of both the parties that the workman was appointed in February, 1984 and was posted in Coak-Oven (Battery) vide order dated 06.03.1984. He was confirmed on 08.05.1995 after completion of probationary period. He was also promoted on 04.08.1988 and was dismissed on 29.10.1997. 21. The first witness of the management was relating to the enquiry proceedings. The Learned Labour Court has considered all the documents and the materials filed before the enquiry officer and recorded that the charge-sheet dated 15.02.1996 was exhibited as Exhibit M-1; Exhibit M-3 was the proceeding of the enquiry committee and found that during enquiry proceeding the statement of the workman concerned was also recorded and vide Exhibit M-5, the workman had filed an application to exonerate him from the charges. The Learned Labour Court has recorded the various sittings which were held during the enquiry. It was also recorded that Exhibit M-10 was the 2nd show cause issued to the workman on 22.09.1997 and Exhibit M-11 was the final settlement letter dated 22.11.1997. The workman had also filed an appeal which was dismissed and thereafter a mercy appeal was also filed which was also dismissed. 22. The Learned Labour Court has recorded a specific finding that the workman was duly intimated and had full knowledge of the enquiry proceedings and the concerned workman had also participated in the enquiry proceedings. The learned Labour Court further recorded that principles of natural justice were duly followed in the enquiry proceedings and details of the proceedings have been fully mentioned in the impugned order. The contention of the workman that 2nd show-cause notice was not issued has also been duly considered and on the basis of materials on record, the matter with regard to 2nd show-cause notice was decided against the workman. The learned Labour Court found that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law and the workman was terminated after issuance of 2nd show-cause notice. The learned Labour Court found that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law and the workman was terminated after issuance of 2nd show-cause notice. The findings of the learned Labour Court on the aforesaid aspect of the matter has been given in paragraph 14 of the impugned award. 23. With regard to explanation of the workman for his absence, the various documents have been considered and it has been specifically held in paragraph 14 of the impugned award that "…..There is nothing on the record to show that regarding his absence during those period he granted or send any leave application to the department concerned of SAIL/Bokaro Steel Plant. So these documents are not helpful in any manner to the said workman regarding his unauthorized absence." 24. The learned Court has clearly recorded a finding that there was nothing on record to show that for the period of absence the workman was granted leave or he sent any leave application to the department. 25. This Court also finds that the workman had raised a specific plea in his written statement filed before the learned court that he used to intimate the management regarding his absence on each and every date, and such intimation was supported by postal documents and it was also stated in the written statement that the relevant documents shall be put up along with the list of documents. Paragraph 7 and 8 of the written statement filed by the workman is quoted as under: - "7. That the workman sent the application by registered post for each absent. 8. That the documents, Postal receipts, fitness certificate of BGH and relevant documents shall be put up along with list of documents." However, from the perusal of the list of exhibits filed on behalf of the workman as mentioned in internal page 7 of the impugned award, this Court finds that there is no reference of any postal receipt or document intimating the management regarding the absence of the workman. This aspect of the matter has also been taken care of by the learned Labour Court by observing that nothing has been brought on record by the workman that he applied for leave in writing before the sanctioning authority. This aspect of the matter has also been taken care of by the learned Labour Court by observing that nothing has been brought on record by the workman that he applied for leave in writing before the sanctioning authority. Moreover, the dates of the medical certificates produced on behalf of the workman were relating to the year 1993 or 1996 and the period of absence involved in the present case as was specifically mentioned in the charge memo dated 15.02.1996 was from June 1995 to November 1995 although the charge was of much wider import that is the petitioner was in the habit of remaining absent from duty without prior permission. 26. The aforesaid two issues i.e. issue nos. (ii) and (iii) framed by the learned Labour Court were decided against the workman by a well-reasoned order considering every aspect of the matter. Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the order passed by the learned Labour Court are quoted as under: “14. Issue No. II and issue no. III. As these two issues are inseparably linked up, I think just and proper to deal with together. It is admitted case of both sides that the workman was appointed as Hot Job Man in the services of company in February, 1984 and was posted in Coak-Oven (Battery) vide order dated 06.03.1984. It is also admitted fact that he was confirmed to the post vide confirmation order dated 03/08.05.1985 after completion of probationary period. It is also admitted fact that he was promoted along with others from Hot Job Man (N3) to N-4 grade vide office order no. 273/88 dated 04.08.1988. The said workman was dismissed on 29.10.1997. When I go through the evidence of management witness namely Bhairwa Mahato I find that he has identified several documents brought on the record by the management. Ext. M-1 is the charge-sheet dated 15.02.1996. From going through Ext. M-1 I find that the said workman was directed to submit his reply in respect of the said charge-sheet within seven days. From going through Ext. M-2 I find that this document is the office order regarding constitution of enquiry committee Ext. M-3 is the proceeding of enquiry committee. From going through this document (Ext. M-3) I find that during the enquiry proceeding the statement of the workman concerned was also recorded. Further from going through Ext. From going through Ext. M-2 I find that this document is the office order regarding constitution of enquiry committee Ext. M-3 is the proceeding of enquiry committee. From going through this document (Ext. M-3) I find that during the enquiry proceeding the statement of the workman concerned was also recorded. Further from going through Ext. M-4 I find that the statement of presenting officer was also recorded. Ext. M-5 is the application of the said workman to the superintendent (N.W.P.) cum chairman enquiry committee to exonerate him from the charge-sheet. From going through ext. M-6 I find that this document is in respect of second sitting of enquiry committee. From going through this document I find that the delinquent workman participated in the second sitting of enquiry proceeding. Ext. M-7 is the application of the workman to the chairman of the enquiry committee to appoint Hira Lal Rajwar. As co-worker Ext. M-8 is the 1st sitting of enquiry committee in respect of the said workman. Ext. M-9 is the report of enquiry committee. From going through this document I find that regarding the unauthorised absence in the year 1996 the charge sheet issued against the workman stood proved. Ext. M-10 is the second show cause notice issued to the workman concerned on dated 22.09.1997. Ext. M-11 is the final settlement letter dated 22.11.1997. Ext. M-12 is the note-sheet along with the dismissal order. From going through Ext. M-13 it transpires that this document is an appeal against the termination of the delinquent workman namely K.B. Ansari filed by the president, Bokaro Steel Worker's Union dated 19.01.1998. Likewise Ext. M-14 is the mercy appeal filed by K.B Ansari, dated 19.01.1998 before the General Manager (P&A). The other witness namely Sudesh Verma examined on behalf of the management has specifically stated that the enquiry officer had explained to the workman about the enquiry proceeding initiated against him. From going through the above documents got exhibited on behalf of the management I find that the delinquent workman was duly intimated and he had full knowledge of enquiry proceeding. The concerned workman also participated in the enquiry proceeding. Thus, from going through the evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of management and also from perusal of the documents got exhibited by the management side It is evident that the workman had fully participated in the enquiry proceeding. The concerned workman also participated in the enquiry proceeding. Thus, from going through the evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of management and also from perusal of the documents got exhibited by the management side It is evident that the workman had fully participated in the enquiry proceeding. The ocular evidence of the management also finds support from the documentary evidence. Further from going through the documents got exhibited on behalf of the management I find that the date and time was also intimated to the workman concerned. From going through the evidence of the management witnesses as well as their documentary evidence, i find that in respect of charge-sheet dated 15.02.1996 (ext. M-1) against the delinquent workman an enquiry committee was constituted and date and time was fixed for the enquiry proceedings and the concerned workman was duly intimated. The relevant documents brought on the record, which have been marked exhibits clearly shows that the workman duly participated in the proceeding of enquiry committee constituted against him. The Ld. Counsel on behalf of the workman has submitted that the principles of natural justice had not been followed by the enquiry officer, while holding the enquiry against the workman, So far this submissions advanced by the Ld. Counsel of the workman is concerned. I find that while holding the enquiry date, place and time were fixed by the enquiry officer and the workman was duly intimated and he also duly participated in the proceeding of domestic enquiry. While holding the enquiry the enquiry officer take care of all fairness during the enquiry proceeding. Therefore, on the basis of above legal material this submission of Ld. Counsel of the workman has not got any legal force. The next limb of the argument of Ld. Counsel of the workman is that second show cause notice was not supplied to the workman. The Ld. Counsel of the workman has relied on the judgment of Md. Ramzan case and the managing director, ECIL case. So, far this submission of the Ld. Counsel of the workman is concerned I find that the said workman vide ext. M-10 issued notice on dated 22.09.1997 in view of his habitual absence from duty. He was given an opportunity to make his submission/representation, if any, within a period of 10 (Ten) days. From going through ext. So, far this submission of the Ld. Counsel of the workman is concerned I find that the said workman vide ext. M-10 issued notice on dated 22.09.1997 in view of his habitual absence from duty. He was given an opportunity to make his submission/representation, if any, within a period of 10 (Ten) days. From going through ext. M-16 of the management I find that after receiving the final settlement number 7350 dated 22.11.1997 of Coak-Oven & B.P.P. department, SAIL/Bokaro Steel Plant was received by the workman on 22.11.1997 and after receiving the same he put his signature on the receiving. Likewise ext. M-13 is an appeal against termination filed by president Bokaro Steel Worker's Union and ext. M-14 is the mercy appeal against termination by the said workman. These two documents clearly shows that the second show cause notice was also issued against the workman and he received the second show cause notice. Further I have also gone through the judgments referred by the Ld. Counsel on behalf of the workman. From going through those judgments I find here that in the facts and circumstances of this case the same are not applicable. As the facts of this case is far distinguishable from the facts of the case of the judgment relied on by the Ld. Counsel of the workman. I have also gone through the documents got exhibited on behalf of the workman. Ext. W-1, Ext.W-2, Ext. W-3, Ext. W-4 are medical certificate regarding treatment of the said workman. From going through Ext. W-5. I find that this document is medical certificate issued by Dr. R.V. Singh in favour of the workman regarding his treatment under the said doctor from 25.01.1996 to 04.03.1996. There is nothing on the record by the workman side whether he was referred by B.G.H. or not? Likewise ext. W-7 is another medical certificate issued by Dr. S.S.P. Singh regarding the treatment of workman from 01.07.1996 to 01.09.1996. There is nothing on the record to show that regarding his absence during those period he granted or send any leave application to the department concerned of SAIL/Bokaro Steel Plant. So these documents are not helpful in any manner to the said workman regarding his unauthorised absence. The rest documents i.e. ext. M- 9, ext. M-10 are the documents regarding the appointment of the workman on the post of Hot Job Man. So these documents are not helpful in any manner to the said workman regarding his unauthorised absence. The rest documents i.e. ext. M- 9, ext. M-10 are the documents regarding the appointment of the workman on the post of Hot Job Man. Nothing has brought on the record by the workman that he applied to obtain leave in writing to the sanctioning authority. From going through those medical documents got exhibited on behalf of the workman I find that the said workman didn't comply clause 20 of the certified standing orders of management company. Clause 20 of the certified standing orders of SAIL/Bokaro Steel Plant is in respect of application for leave. Therefore, on the basis of above discussion I find that the said contention raised by the Ld. Counsel of the workman has also not got any legal force. Thus on the basis of above discussions of the evidence and documents produced and got exhibited by either sides in respect of domestic enquiry and the careful appraisal of ocular as well as documentary evidence, I find that the domestic enquiry against the workman was held in accordance with the principle of natural justice. Sufficient time and opportunities were given to the workman to defend himself and also to file the reply of charge-sheet. Here, I also find that the said workman had duly participated in enquiry proceedings. 15. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the domestic enquiry as conducted against the workman was in fair and proper manner applying the principles of natural justice. There is nothing on the record to show that the workman was prejudiced in any manner. Therefore, on the basis of above discussions and findings these two issues i.e. issue no. Il and issue no. III are decided in favour of management and against the concerned workman. In this manner I hold that the domestic enquiry as conducted against the said workman in all fairness abiding by the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the dismissal of the said workman namely Sri. Kutubuddin Ansari by the management of SAIL/Bokaro Steel Plant is justified.” 27. III are decided in favour of management and against the concerned workman. In this manner I hold that the domestic enquiry as conducted against the said workman in all fairness abiding by the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the dismissal of the said workman namely Sri. Kutubuddin Ansari by the management of SAIL/Bokaro Steel Plant is justified.” 27. After having held that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper, the learned Labour Court referred to the provisions of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and was of the view that the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman having been found to be proper and fair, the scope for enquiry was as to whether the punishment was disproportionate to the proved misconduct. The learned Labour Court, while considering the punishment, has passed a reasoned order and has recorded that the workman was leaving work without permission which was absence without leave and when a workman systematically absents himself from work without any permission and without making any application for leave, such act is a gross violation of discipline. 28. The learned Court was of the view that the management could establish by adducing cogent evidence and reliable legal material that the workman remained absent from duty and was also absent from duty on earlier occasions for which various charge sheets including Exhibit M-19, M-24 and M-27 were issued. The learned Labour Court, by a well-reasoned order, was of the view that in the nature of gravity of charge against the workman, there was no justification to interfere by reducing the punishment awarded by the management. The learned Labour Court ultimately held in paragraph 17 and 18 as follows: “17. In the instant case I find here that the workman was leaving work without permission in another form of absence without leave, As, such when a workman systematically absents himself from work without making permission and without making any application for leave, such act is gross violation of discipline. The case at hand the management has established by adducing cogent and reliable legal material that the said workman remains absent from duty and was also absent from duty on earlier occasions for which he was charge-sheeted vide ext. M-19, Ext. M-21, Ext. M-24, Ext. M-27. The case at hand the management has established by adducing cogent and reliable legal material that the said workman remains absent from duty and was also absent from duty on earlier occasions for which he was charge-sheeted vide ext. M-19, Ext. M-21, Ext. M-24, Ext. M-27. Thus, from going through the act of the said workman I find that this was his repeated act of his absence from duty and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case I arrived at a conclusion that in the nature of the gravity of charge against the said workman it is not justified to interfere in reduction of the punishment awarded by the management to the said workman. 18. Therefore, I find that the punishment awarded to the workman in my considered opinion is not shockingly "disproportionate." Thus, on the basis of above discussions I find that the said workman is not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, these two issues i.e. issue no. I and issue no. IV are also decided in favour of the management and against the workman.” 29. This Court finds that the learned Court has meticulously considered all the materials on record and has specifically recorded in paragraph 6 of the impugned award that as per order sheet dated 11.10.2010, the predecessor of the Court had not decided the fairness of enquiry as preliminary issue and the case proceeded accordingly, the parties were given the option to adopt the oral and documentary evidence produced by them during trial of preliminary issue or if they so like may produce any other oral or documentary evidence, and therefore, the learned Court while passing the impugned award framed one of the issues as to whether the domestic enquiry as conducted against the workman was in all fairness abiding by the principles of natural justice. 30. This Court finds that the learned Labour Court has rightly considered the fairness of domestic enquiry and has exercised its power in terms of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The records reveal that habitual unauthorized absence from duty by the workman (deceased) stood well proved by the management and the management had put sufficient materials on record that the enquiry held against the workman was fair and proper. The records reveal that habitual unauthorized absence from duty by the workman (deceased) stood well proved by the management and the management had put sufficient materials on record that the enquiry held against the workman was fair and proper. This Court finds that the wife of the workman who deposed before the learned Court after the death of the workman during the pendency of the case could not bring on record any material to show that the enquiry was not fair and proper or justify the absence of the workman without leave or place anything on record that the workman ever intimated the management regarding his illness although the workman had taken a specific stand in the written statement that due intimation on each occasion of absence was given to the management by post but no such documents were exhibited. Further, the absence from duty is not in dispute and the wife of the workman could not produce any material to justify act of habitual unauthorized absence of the workman particularly for the days specifically mentioned in the charge memo in the span of the period from June 1995 to November 1995. This Court is of the considered view that merely because the enquiry officer had recorded the total period of absence for the year 1995 as 140 days and for the year 1996 as 132 days after having found the workman guilty of charges does not vitiate the enquiry proceeding and also the impugned award. The total period of absence of 140 days certainly included the days of absence from June 1995 to November 1995. 31. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of this case and the impugned award, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the award calling for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 32. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.