AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ananda Sen, J
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-Workman and learned counsel for the respondent–Management.
By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner-workman has challenged an Award dated 21.08.2015 (Annexure-7), passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad, in Reference No.43 of 2013 under the Industrial Disputes Act, whereby the reference was answered against the workman.
Learned counsel representing the petitioner-workman submits that without examining the witnesses, the award has been passed accepting the document, which is illegal. He further submits that this workman has been acquitted in the criminal case. Thus, the award needs to be considered.
Learned counsel representing the respondent-Management submits that the acquittal is after the dismissal of this petitioner from service. He also submits that the acquittal is on the basis of benefit of doubt and is not a clean acquittal. He argues that by a proper departmental proceeding in which evidence was laid by the parties, considering all the materials, this petitioner was dismissed from service.
He further submits that a dispute was raised by this petitioner-workman. The preliminary issue of fairness of the disciplinary proceeding was not even challenged by the workman which means that he has accepted that the departmental proceeding was fair and proper. When the departmental proceeding was fair and proper and there was no violation of principles of natural justice, the Tribunal would not have reopened the entire issue and adjudicated the dismissal order, as if sitting as a Trial Court. Since, there is no illegality or irregularity in the entire process and in fact the workman has himself accepted his guilt which is evident from Ext.M/5 (Series), thus, there is no illegality in the award and the same needs to be upheld by dismissing this petition.
The admitted fact is that this petitioner is a workman under the respondent-Management. He got indulged in stealing of company’s valuable property, for which he was charge-sheeted. The Management conducted an enquiry in which the petitioner was found guilty and he was dismissed from service. Challenging the order of dismissal, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute and sought for a reference before the Tribunal. The Central Government referred the matter for adjudication before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. The reference reads as follows:-
“SCHEDULE.
“Whether the action of the management of Sinidih workshop of M/S BCCL in dismissing Sri Suranjan Kundu from the service w.e.f. 01.04.2005 is fair and justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled?”
Before the Tribunal, both the parties did not adduce any oral evidence but several documents were marked as exhibits. Be it noted that strict procedure of the Evidence Act is not applicable while adjudicating reference under the Industrial Disputes Act.
When I go through the Award, I find that the petitioner-workman has not challenged the fairness and propriety of the departmental proceeding. The Tribunal has held that the departmental enquiry was held fairly and properly. The Tribunal further considering the materials on record has held that the petitioner-workman himself has admitted that he has committed the theft and thus, filed a mercy petition. The Tribunal has held that the materials which were stolen were recovered from the house of this petitioner-workman.
Though, the criminal case concluded in acquittal but the same was after the order of dismissal. The judgment of acquittal is also on record, which suggests that on the benefit of doubt, this petitioner has been acquitted. The standard of proof in both the proceedings is different. A criminal case proceeds on the basis of proof which is beyond reasonable doubt whereas standard of proof in a departmental proceeding is based on preponderance of probability, on the basis whereof, the petitioner-workman can be punished. In this case since the material was recovered from the house of this petitioner and he has accepted his guilt, the same has been considered against this petitioner and he was punished.
This Court sitting in jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the Award has been challenged, has got very limited jurisdiction. This Court cannot re-apprise the fact. When there was no illegality or irregularity and the proceeding is fair and proper, nothing much remains to be adjudicated in this dispute. Further the punishment of dismissal is also not harsh and is not disproportionate to the charge leveled, as it is a case of theft of property of the employer by an employee.
Considering what has been held above, I find no merit in this writ petition.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.