Hazra Khatoon & Ors vs Employer in relation to the Management of Tetulmari Colliery under Sijua Area of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd & Ors

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The appellant faced a disciplinary proceeding under its employer M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited ( respondent herein) for having obtained

appointment by misrepresenting himself as a land looser. The disciplinary proceeding ended up in his dismissal. On industrial dispute having been

raised, the Central Government made a reference to the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in the following terms for

adjudication:-

Whether the action of the management of Tetulmari Colliery under Sijua area of M/s B.C.C.L. in dismissing Sri Mohd. Salimuddin, peace rate

Trammer from the service vide their letter No. TK0/F-90/1077/89 dated 30.5/1.6.89 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?

The learned tribunal by an award dated 09.12.1999 passed in Reference Case No. 37 of 1991 answered the reference in favour of the

concerned workman with a direction to reinstate him with full back wages and all other consequential benefits. Aggrieved therefrom the employer

approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1487 of 2000(R). The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 28.04.2009 was pleased to

allow the writ application and quash the impugned award. The workman is in appeal against the findings of the learned Single Judge. The

appellant/workman died during pendency of the appeal and has been substituted by his widow, two major sons and two minor sons.

The learned Single Judge found errors in the findings of the learned tribunal on two counts, one that if the disciplinary proceeding conducted by

the employer was found to be fair and proper, the learned tribunal should not have reappraised the evidence in the domestic enquiry. The scope of

interference was limited to examine the correctness of the disciplinary proceeding and enquiry and if the same were found to be fair and proper, the

learned tribunal could have only interfered on the question of proportionality of the punishment. Reliance has been drawn on this point from the

judgment of Apex Court reported in (2006)13 SCC 613, (2005) 3 SCC 331, (2005)3SCC 401 and (2008)1SCC 224. Secondly the learned

Single Judge found error in the appreciation of evidence by the learned tribunal which rendered the finding susceptible to being erroneous in the eye

of law. The judgment rendered by the Land Acquisition Judge in Reference Case No. 55 of 1982 dated 27.01.1984 held the awardees liable to

return the compensation amount to the applicants who claimed ownership of the acquired land bearing plot nos. 3669 and 3672 in the reference

made under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. These two plots were also amongst a number of plots which found reference in the

agreement Ext.-M1 ( Annexure-6), whereunder certain land loosers of Mauza Bauakalan P.S. Tetulmari, Katras Mouza No. 228 , District-

Dhanbad were granted employment. The name of father of the appellant appears at serial 10 thereof under the category of displaced person.

Learned Single Judge, therefore, held that the findings of the learned tribunal that the workman had not obtained employment as a land looser but

only by way of an agreement (Ext.-M1/Annexure-6 to the writ petition), in order to buy peace on the part of the employer was incorrect. If such a

finding was incorrect, interference in the domestic enquiry on the part of the learned tribunal was wholly uncalled for. Based on these findings, the

award of the CGIT No. 1, Dhanbad dated 09.12.1999 was quashed.

Learned senior counsel for the appellant has placed heavy reliance on the agreement Ext.-M1, which according to him leads to the only

impression that employment to the persons covered under it were granted by M/s. BCCL in order to purchase peace for setting up a Coal

Handling Plant at village- Bauakalan P.S. Tetulmari. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has however not been able to overcome the pertinent

query put to him about the description of the plots, especially bearing Nos. 3669 and 3672 in the M1 document including the name of the father of

the appellants in the category of displaced persons. Further in the application of the father of the appellant made to the General Manager, BCCL

Sijua Area, Ext.-M2 (Annexure-7) he had voluntarily agreed to alienate the same two pieces of land in favour of BCCL for seeking employment

on a piece rated job. Plot Nos. 3669 and 3672 as mentioned above are the same plots in respect of which L.A. Reference Case No. 55 of 1982

was decided by the judgment dated 27.1.1984 ( Ext.-M4/Annexure-8 to the writ petition).

Learned senior counsel has placed the findings of the learned tribunal in order to buttress his point that the L.A. case had no mention of the

father of the appellants. Therefore, the learned tribunal was justified to hold that the employment gained by the appellant was not as a land looser

but only by virtue of the agreement Ext.-M1 between BCCL and several persons of the said village- Bauakalan.

Learned counsel representing the respondent/BCCL has placed all these three documents, part of the record of the writ proceedings, in order to

bring home the point that the employment obtained by the appellant was in fact on the basis of his claim as a land looser. If the competent court of

law under the L.A. Act rendered a finding in favour of the applicants Mahanand Parmanik and others on the question of ownership and title of the

land and directed return of the compensation from the awardees, then the employment obtained on the basis of being a land looser of those two

pieces of plots could not have been sustained on the part of the workman/appellant.

On consideration of the plea of the parties and upon minute scrutiny of the relevant factual details which govern the determination of the issue at

hand, we find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the employer. As noted above, the Ext.-M1, agreement itself shows the father

of the appellant as a land looser and also makes reference of the two plots of land in Mauza- Bauakalan, P.S.-Tetulmari in lieu of which the

employment were given to them or their dependent in order to buy peace with them. Ext.-M2, an application on behalf of father of the appellant?s

to alienate these two plots of land to gain employment on a piece rated job clinches this issue of fact as these are the two plots which are covered

under the judgment of the Land Acquisition Judge in L.A. Reference Case No. 55 of 1982 dated 27.01.1984.

In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge was fully justified in rendering its finding on both counts and interfering with the impugned

award. We, do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge which deserves interference in appeal. Accordingly, the

instant appeal stands dismissed.