Jharkhand High Court
Employers In Relation To The Management ... vs The Presiding Officer, Central ... on 16 May, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007(2)BLJR2331, [2007(3)JCR333(JHR)], 2008 LAB. I. C. (NOC) 385 (JHAR.) = 2008 (1) AIR JHAR R 490, 2008 (1) AIR JHAR R 490, (2007) 114 FACLR 946, (2008) 1 CURLR 255
Author: R.K. Merathia
Bench: R.K. Merathia
JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J.
Page 2332
1. Petitioner-Management has prayed for quashing the Award dated 14.6.2002, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, at Dhanbad (herein after referred to as the Tribunal) in Reference Case No. 127 of 1995 (Annexure-3).
2. The following dispute was referred for adjudication vide order dated 10.10.1995.
Whether the action of the management of Lodna Colliery of M/s BCCL in dismissing S/Shri Nand Kishore Ram and Ram Lakhan Ram, Miner/Loader w.e.f. 19/22 Nov., 1990 is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?
3. The Tribunal held that the termination of the concerned workmen was illegal and was done without holding a regular departmental enquiry and therefore they are entitled to reinstatement with 50% back wages and other consequential benefits. However, liberty was given to the Management to make fresh enquiry against the concerned workmen after giving them opportunity.
4. Mr. Mehta, appearing for the petitioner-Management, submitted as follows. The concerned workmen-Nand Kishore Ram and Ram Lakhan Ram were employed temporarily in the year 1990 under a special drive to recruit Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates, as per the Scheme of 1986 of the Government of India. It was specifically stipulated in the employment letters (Ext.M-1 and M-1/1) that on expiry of three months' period, the services will stand automatically terminated unless otherwise extended and that if their Identification and Attestation Form are not found genuine in the verification by the district authority, their services will be terminated without assigning any reason and legal action will also be taken against them. Accordingly, the caste certificates produced by them were sent to the Block Development Officer, who reported that the same were fake and accordingly they were terminated with effect from 22.11.1990. Then they again submitted caste certificates with different permanent home addresses, due to which, the matter was reported to the Deputy Commissioner but in the meantime, the said scheme of 1986 was closed and therefore the Management decided not to take any further action.
5. Mr. Mehta further submitted that the Award is illegal and perverse. In spite of clear evidence of B.D.O., the Tribunal held that "there is no scope to come to definite conclusion that the caste certificates were fake or not". He further submitted that the purported caste certificates produced by the concerned workmen, after their termination were beyond the scope and purview of reference. In view of the clear stipulation in the appointment letter as aforesaid and as the caste certificates were found fake, the Management was not required to initiate a regular departmental proceeding and was justified in terminating the concerned workmen. Relying on the Page 2333 judgment reported in (2006) 3 SCC 81 Municipal Council, Samrala v. Raj Kumar, he submitted that the concerned workmen were terminated in terms of the stipulations contained in their employment letter which is justified under second part of Clause (oo)(bb) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
6. Supporting the Award, Mr. Baban Lal, appearing for the concerned workmen, submitted that the scope of interference with the Award is limited and this Court may not interfere with the findings of facts.
7. In my opinion, the Award cannot be sustained for the following reasons. Admittedly, the concerned workmen were employed temporarily on or about 22/23rd May, 1990 under a scheme. They were terminated after about five months on 11/22.11.1990 as their caste certificates, which were the basis of their employment under the scheme, called SC & ST Scheme, were found fake. The onus was on the workmen to show that their caste certificates were genuine. But they failed to discharge such onus. The Management examined Block Development Officer in order to justify it's decision to terminate the workmen. The Block Development Officer with reference to the register maintained in the office in respect of caste certificates clearly said that the caste certificates in question bearing serial No. 793 and 798 ( Ext.M-2 and M-2/1) were not issued in the name of the concerned workmen, rather they were issued in the name of other persons. The Tribunal observed that the said witness did not prove the signature of his predecessor in office, on the caste certificate and therefore examination of this witness was of no help to the Management. It further observed that if the serial numbers appearing in the caste certificates do not tally with the serial numbers in the register, it does not mean that the certificates in question are fake. In paragraph 5 of the judgment in Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Prakash Chand Jain , it is said that if the conclusion is one to which no reasonable man could reach on that evidence, the same is perverse. The Tribunal was further wrong in drawing adverse inference against the Management saying that the caste certificates which were again submitted by the workmen were sent by the Management for verification, but it did not produce the verification report. Such consideration was beyond the scope and purview of the reference. Further more, it was clearly stipulated that the service was temporary and subject to the condition that their identification and the attestation form are found genuine on verification by the district authority. Therefore, when the caste certificates were found false, the termination was in terms of the stipulations of employment which was justified under the second part of Clause (oo)(bb) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, as per the judgment of Municipal Council (Supra).
8. In view of the facts and circumstances and the legal position, noticed above, the Award dated 14.6.2002, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, at Dhanbad, in Reference Case No. 127 of 1995, cannot be sustained and accordingly the same is set aside. This writ petition is allowed. However, no costs.