Calcutta High Court
Tapas Mondal And Ors. vs Eastern Coalfields Ltd. on 9 February, 1995
Equivalent citations: (1997)IIILLJ1066CAL
Author: Satyabrata Sinha
Bench: Satyabrata Sinha
ORDER Satyabrata Sinha, J.
1. In all these applications, a common question of law has been raised, and as such, these applications are being disposed of together.
2. The petitioners are workmen working in Kalidaspur Colliery belonging to Eastern Coalfields Limited, which is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice, in as much as, in some matters, documents asked for by them in the departmental proceedings have not been furnished. Further contention of the learned Counsel is that the petitioners are going to be dismissed from service without supplying copies of the enquiry reports submitted to the disciplinary authority by the Enquiry Officer, which is mandatory, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar, reported in (1994-I-LLJ-162), and the decision in the case of Committee of Management Kisan Degree College v. Shambhu Saran Pandey reported in 1995(1) SLR 31.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Eastern Coalfields Limited, however, submits that the enquiry proceedings are still continuing, and the petitioners, in the event charges against the petitioners are held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer in the said enquiry, copies of the enquiry report would be supplied to them.
4. The terms and conditions of service of the petitioners are governed by the Standing Orders certified under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. It is now well known that a departmental enquiry by the employer has to be held in terms of the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders. However, if any order of punishment is imposed upon the petitioners without following the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders the remedy of the petitioners would be to raise an industrial dispute. It is now well known in view of several decisions of the Supreme Court of India that Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is a self-contained Code. By reason of the provisions of the said Act, not only rights have been conferred upon the workman, but forums have also been created for enforcement thereof. When there exists a more efficacious remedy, this Court normally does not exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is now also well settled in view of several decisions of the Supreme Court of India that if and when a dispute is raised, the employer may file an appropriate application for adjudicating upon the legality and/or validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue and pray therein that in the event such a preliminary issue is decided against the employer, they may be permitted to adduce evidence independently before the Tribunal to prove the charges levelled against the concerned workman. The aforementioned remedy is, therefore, available to the employer if a reference is made by the appropriate Government in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Such a remedy is not available to the employer in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, conferred an extraordinary power upon the Tribunal in terms whereof Tribunal is not only empowered to set aside an order of dismissal, but also is entitled to consider as to whether the punishment imposed upon the workman is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the workman. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot exercise such power.
5. For the reasons aforementioned, in my opinion, although the petitioners may be entitled to the copies of the enquiry reports, non-supply thereof, ex facie, would not mean that this Court may exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, it is well known that a writ Court cannot be converted into an industrial Court. Reference in this connection may be made in the case of Basant Kumar v. Eagle Rolling Mills, reported in (1964-II-LLJ-105) (S.C.), and in the case of Mohini v. G.M., Syndicate Bank, reported in 1969 FLR 1061.
6. For the reasons aforementioned, no relief as has been prayed for, can be granted to the petitioners in this application. The petitioners, in the event any punishment is imposed upon them in violation of the principles of natural justice, or in violation of any provisions of the Certified Standing Orders, may take recourse to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, as indicated hereinbefore, in this case, learned Counsel for the respondents has stated that no order of punishment has yet been passed upon the petitioners, and in the event they are held guilty of the charges levelled against them by the Enquiry Officer, copies of the enquiry report shall be furnished to them before any order of punishment is imposed.
7. These applications are disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directions.
8. Learned counsel for the parties are premitted to take down gist of this order and communicate the same to the concerned authorities.
9. Liberty is given to the learned counsel for the respondents to file Vakalatnama.