CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2002) 09 JH CK 0090

Employer in relation to the Management of Lodna Area No. X of BCCL vs Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 and Another

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 5 September 2002

HON’BLE JUDGES
Tapen Sen, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
CWJC No. 1227 of 1993 (R)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 357 words

Tapen Sen, J.—Heard Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.K. Laik, learned counsel for the respondents.

2.

According to the respondent No. 2, the inquiry was conducted on 15.4.1983 and it was completed on 26.9.1983. Thereafter, the management remained absolutely silent and dormant and suddenly on 18/19.9.1989 it proceeded to dismiss the concerned workman from the service. Paragraph 10 of the Award clearly shows that the concerned workman had committed some mistakes in calculation and therefore, at paragraph 11, the learned tribunal came to a conclusion that the workman concerned was neither guilty of theft nor of fraud nor was dishonest in connection with the Company''s business or property and that there was no evidence on record to show that he had done anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to himself or wrongful loss to his employer. The learned tribunal also came to a conclusion that there was no evidence on record to prove that the concerned workman had an intention to deceive his employer. After having come into aforesaid conclusion, the learned tribunal observed :--

"but nevertheless the fact remains that he committed some mistakes and carelessness which he should have avoided."

Under such circumstances, the tribunal held that since the concerned workman had committed only the mistake of being careless, he would therefore be reinstated from service but would be entitled to only for 50% of the backwages for the period he remained dismissed from the service. Accordingly, the order of dismissal was set aside and the management was directed to reinstate the concerned workman with effect from the date of his dismissal and to pay only 50% of the back-wages for the aforementioned period.

3.

This Court does not find any perversity or illegality with the Award nor should this Court substitute itself and give a fresh Award. Reference for such proposition may be made to the case of Jitendra Singh Rathor Vs. Shri Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. and Another, and Indian Overseas Bank Vs. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers'' Union and Another, .

4.

For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed.