Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Manager Gajandoh Mines Of Wcl vs General Secretary Rkkms (Intuc) on 23 September, 2024
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51024
1 WP-1269-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 23rd OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 1269 of 2017
THE MANAGER GAJANDOH MINES OF WCL
Versus
GENERAL SECRETARY RKKMS (INTUC)
Appearance:
Shri Anoop Nair - Senior Advocate with Shri Mihir Lunawat - Advocate for the
petitioner.
Shri S.K. Rao - Senior Advocate with Shri Sukhendra Kushwaha - Advocate for
the respondent.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 14.06.2016 (Annexure-P/1) and order dated 03.09.2015 (Annexure-P/2) passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), Jabalpur.
2. On 03.09.2015, order was passed on preliminary issue holding that inquiry conducted against workman is illegal. Final award was passed on 14.06.2016 and 50% backwages from date of dismissal i.e. 03.05.1992 till death of Workman i.e, on 11.01.2012 was allowed and amount of PF and other retiral benefits were ordered to be paid to widow of deceased Workman. Impugned orders were challenged on ground that no opportunity was given to prove misconduct of Workman.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner has relied upon the Provision of Section 10(8) of The Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. It was stated Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHABANA ANSARI Signing time: 10/17/2024 12:48:48 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51024 2 WP-1269-2017 that on death of Workman pending inquiry and question of reference does not abate and tribunal does not become functus officio , therefore, Management ought to have been given opportunity to adduce evidence against the Workman to establish misconduct. He placed reliance on the judgement passed by Apex Court in case of Rameshwar Manjhi (deceased) through his son Lakhiram Manjhi vs. Management of Sangramgrah Colliery and Others reported in (1994) 1 SCC 294 a n d V. Veeramani Vs. Management of Madurai District Cooperative Supply and Marketing Society Limited and Another reported in 1995 supp (3) SCC 557.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents opposed the petition and submitted that no opportunity be given to Management to adduce evident against a dead person. No error has been committed by CGIT in passing orders dated 03.09.2015 and 14.06.2016, therefore, petition may be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. On going through the factual matrix of the case, it is found that incident is said to have occurred on 17.04.1992 when Workman approached his Office under influence of liquor. He was not allowed to work on duty by Manager Ram Chandra. Workman was annoyed and he assaulted him with iron rod. Charge-sheet was issued against Workman on 20.04.1992. Charge- sheet could not be served to Workman and notices were published in Jabalpur Express Newspaper on 23.04.1992. Workman did not appear in enquiry, therefore, he was proceeded ex-parte. Inquiry commenced from 26.04.1992 and same was completed within short period of 30 days.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHABANA ANSARI Signing time: 10/17/2024 12:48:48 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51024 3 WP-1269-2017 Management sought permission to prove misconduct. Permission was not granted as Workman was dead. It is also important to mention that Workman was arrested by police on 20.04.1992 and was in jail till 15.05.1992.
7. Considered aforesaid facts which are available on record and on going through said facts, it is found that inquiry which was conducted by Management is illegal. Workman was in jail from 20.04.1992 to 15.05.1992, therefore, inquiry could not have been completed behind his back. Publication in newspaper cannot be treated as service on Workman. He was in jail when inquiry was completed, therefore, in all probability it was beyond his control to appear in enquiry and defend himself. CGIT has not committed any error in not granting opportunity to Management to prove misconduct of Workman. He was dismissed from service on 03.05.1992 and he died on 11.01.2012. Since, departmental inquiry was conducted violating the rights of natural justice in a hasty manner, therefore, no fault can be found in the order passed by CGIT. Since, inquiry is vitiated by non- observance of rights of natural justice of Workman, therefore, there is no point in allowing Management to rely on evidence which was recorded behind the back of Workman and to prove his misconduct.
8. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, petition is dismissed.
(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE $A Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHABANA ANSARI Signing time: 10/17/2024 12:48:48 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51024 4 WP-1269-2017 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHABANA ANSARI Signing time: 10/17/2024 12:48:48 PM