Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The workman was employed as a Senior Assistant in CCIL in 1996 and was posted at the ICD, Tuglakabad. On 18th August 1998 the workman was arrested in a criminal complaint filed by the State Bank of India („SBI‟), Parliament Street Branch and remained in judicial custody till 5th September 1998. On 29th September 1998 the workman submitted a leave application for grant of earned leave for the period from 19th August to 9th September 1998. By letter dated 24th December 1998 the Station House Officer of Police Station Parliament Street informed the Chief General Manager of CCIL about the arrest of the workman in FIR No. 356 of 1998 and of the fact that he remained in police custody for two days, and in judicial custody for seventeen days. According to the Petitioner the FIR also showed that the workman had been engaged in part-time employment with some other employer even while he was in full time employment with CCIL. On the charges of absconding from duty, suppressing the fact of his arrest and engaging in a part-time job with another employer the workman was placed under suspension from 13th January 1999. He was served with a chargesheet on 25th February 1999. The enquiry officer („EO‟) submitted a report dated 30 th May 2000 holding three of the four charges against the workman to be proved. The Disciplinary Authority („DA‟) agreed with the finding of the EO and by an order dated 12th July 2000 the workman was removed from service. The appeal filed by the workman was disposed of by the Appellate Authority („AA‟) by an order dated 13th September 2000 with a direction to the EO to hold a de novo enquiry after "obtaining authenticated/certified/attested copies of the FIR, arrest memo and other relevant documents officially and exhibiting the same as additional relied upon documents." The order of removal was directed to be kept in abeyance.

4. The EO after recording additional evidence again submitted a report dated 23 rd March 2001. The AA accepted the workman‟s objection against the said report and again by an order dated 24th July 2001 set aside the order of removal from service and directed the holding of de novo enquiry. On 20th July 2002 CCIL transferred the Respondent workman to ICD, Dhandori Kalan, District Ludhiana.

5. By a report dated 20th November 2002 the EO found charges 2 and 3, i.e., the charge of the workman remaining unauthorisedly absent upto 9th September 1998, and concealing the fact of his arrest by misrepresenting the purpose of leave as personal, to be proved. However, the EO held charge No. 1 (that the workman absconded on 18th August 1998 after marking his appointment in pre-shift) and charge No. 4 (that he was engaged in part-time job with another employer while being in full time employment with the CCIL) to be not proved. After giving the workman an opportunity of being heard, the DA by an order dated 26th March 2004 held charges 3 and 4 to be proved and imposed the punishment of removal from service. By an order dated 29th June 2004 the AA dismissed the workman‟s appeal and upheld the order dated 26th March 2004 passed by the DA removing him from service.

17. It was held by the CGIT in the impugned order dated 27th July 2011 that I.D. No. 160 of 1999 was pending when the order dated 26th March 2004 was passed by CCIL removing the workman from service. The workman was a „workman concerned‟ in I.D. No. 160 of 1999 since an Award in the said dispute was capable of directly affecting the workman favourably or prejudicially depending upon the result. The CGIT observed: "A workman who is likely to benefit or get adversely affected by any decision will be a „workman concerned‟ in such dispute." Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the Jaipur Zila Sahakari case, the CGIT answered the issues framed against CCIL and held that the order dated 26th March 2004 removing the workman from service was null and void and that the workman should be deemed to be in service entitling him to all the consequential benefits.

28. Consequently, there is no merit in the contention of learned ASG that the CGIT could have, at the highest, only awarded the workman back wages for the period between 26th March 2004 and 2nd March 2006 and no other relief. There is also no merit in the contention that the removal order could not be held to be void ab initio but only ineffective and inoperative on account of the CCIL not seeking approval under Section 33(2)(b) ID Act. The Supreme Court in Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. has held that an employer would not be entitled to make a second application seeking approval and that too without paying the full wages. It was emphasized that absent the employer obtaining approval under Section 33(2)(b) ID Act, the order of dismissal becomes void and inoperative and the workman would be entitled to full back wages as if he was never removed from service. CCIL cannot, in the instant case, plead that it was not aware of the correct legal position as regards the precise industrial dispute in regard to which the Respondent was the concerned workman. Yet, it chose not to seek approval of the order of his removal by making an application in that dispute, i.e., I.D. No.160 of 1999. This is what the Supreme Court disapproved of in the Jaipur Zila Sahakari case when it observed that where "an employer by design" avoids making an application after dismissing or discharging an employee, he cannot take "a position that such order is not inoperative or void till it is set aside under Section 33A notwithstanding the contravention of Section 33(2)(b), proviso, driving the employee to have recourse to one or more proceeding by making a complaint under Section 33A or to raise another industrial dispute or to make a complaint under Section 31(1)." The Supreme Court emphasised that "such an approach destroys the protection specifically and expressly given to an employee under the said proviso as against possible victimization, unfair labour practice or harassment because of pendency of industrial dispute so that an employee can be saved from hardship of unemployment."