AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amareshwar Sahay, J.—Heard the parties.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 19.08.1989 issued under the signature of Deputy Chief Mining Engineer, Project Office, Sudamdih as contained in Annexure-4 by which the petitioner has been dismissed, from service.
Further prayer of the petitioner is to quash the Award dated 23.01.2001 passed by the Presiding, Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 20 of 1991, as contained in Annexure-5, by which the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad, in answer to the dispute referred to it, held that the action of the Management of Sudamdih Shaft Mine of M/s BCCL, in dismissing the petitioner from service was justified and the petitioner/concerned workman was not entitled to any relief.
The facts in short giving rise to this application are that the petitioner being employed as a Dresser was posted in Sudamdih Shaft Mine of M/s. B.C.C.L. A complaint was made by one another employee namely Ashok Mallah, a other of the Rescue Station of the said Colliery that his sister Urmila Kumari was taken to the riverside dispensary at Sudamdh for treatment of her injured finger. The concerned workman/petitioner attended her at 10:00 A.M. and asked her to come again at 12:15 P.M. to collect medicine. Urmila Kumari, aged about 12 years, again came to the dispensary at about 12:15 P.M. when the dispensary was closed and the petitioner was outside the dispensary. He took Urmila Kumari and three children of Ashok Mallah who were accompanying inside the dressing room and closed three children in one room and thereafter, took Urmila Kumari to dressing room where he dressed her injured finger and thereafter, uncressed her lower garments and outraged her modesty. During outraging her modesty, he gagged her mouth so that she may not cry.
Thereafter, the petitioner was charge sheet and was put under suspension. He submitted his reply denying the allegations but finding the same to be not satisfactory, a domestic inquiry was initiated against the petitioner in which the petitioner also participated. Several witnesses were examined on behalf of the management as well as on behalf of the petitioner and, thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the concerned workman was guilty. On the basis of which the order of dismissal was passed by the management. The petitioner, thereafter, raised industrial dispute which was referred to the Central Government, Industrial Tribunal for adjudication as to whether the action of the management in dismissing the petitioner from service was justified and if not what relief he is entitled to.
The Industrial Tribunal, by the impugned Award, on the basis of materials on record, held that the action of the management in dismissing the workman was justified and he was not entitled to any relief. From the impugned Award, it appears that the domestic inquiry held against the petitioner was found to be fair and proper.
Mr. Saurav Arun, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, by assailing the impugned Award as well as dismissal order, submitted that the authority who issued the chargesheet against the petitioner was not competent to issue such chargesheet and, therefore, the departmental inquiry held against the petitioner on the basis of said chargesheet is vitiated in law, Elaborating his arguments, he submitted that the chargesheet was issued under the signature of Deputy General Manager, Project who was not competent to issue charge sheet. He further submitted that the evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner i.e. the concerned workman were not considered by the inquiry officer as well as by the Industrial Tribunal and, therefore, the order of dismissal as well as the impugned Award are not sustainable in the eyes of law and, therefore, the same are liable to be quashed.
Mr. Saurav Arun, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and Another Vs. Chandrapal Singh and Another, and in the case of Smt. Kanta Devi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, ,
On the other hand, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent - employer submitted that once the domestic enquiry was found to be fair and proper then the scope left is very limited u/s 11A of the industrial Disputes Act. He submitted that by a catena of decision, now it has been settled that once the domestic enquiry is found to be fair and proper then the findings arrived at in the domestic inquiry cannot be upset or disturbed by the Industrial Tribunal or by any Court after reappraisal of evidence. The Courts cannot substitute its own findings in place of the findings arrived at in the domestic inquiry unless it is shown that the findings of fact arrived at by the domestic inquiry was perverse and not based on the materials on record.
In support of his submissions, he has relied on the decision in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Vinod Kumar, and in the case of Employers Management West Bokaro Colliery of TISCO Ltd. Vs. Concerned Workman, Ram Pravesh Singh, .
During domestic enquiry proceeding, the Certified Standing Order of the Company was produced and marked as Annexure-A to show that Deputy General Manager was fully authorized to take action against the petitioner. Moreover, the order of dismissal was also approved by the Chief General Manager, therefore, the submission of the petitioner questioning the validity of the domestic enquiry can''t be accepted.
From a perusal of the impugned inquiry report as well as the Award of the Industrial Tribunal, I find that the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the concerned workman, i.e. the petitioner has been fully discussed in details and considered and, therefore, the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner that the evidence of witnesses of the petitioner was not considered, does not appear to be correct. The decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are not at all applicable in the facts and circumtances of the present case since those are entirely on different points which are not involved in the present case.
The petitioner has not challenged the legality or fairness of the domestic enquiry in which the charges against him were found to be established.
The petitioner was dismissed from service on proof of misconduct. It was established by evidence that he indulged in indecent behaviour in outraging the modesty of a minor girl. The Supreme Court in the case of Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Others, has held that a writ of certionari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunal or in the cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunal without jurisdiction or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue writ of certiorarl is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of facts reached by the inferior court or tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, howsoever grave it may appear to be.
This decision has been followed by the Supreme Court in its subsequent decision in the case of Cholan Roadways Limited Vs. G. Thirugnanasambandam, and in the case of The Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. P. Jayaram Reddy, .
In the present case, the Inquiry Officer as well as the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence and materials on record, have come to concurrent findings on facts that the charges against the petitioner have been fully established. Nothing has been shown on behalf of the petitioner that any of the findings arrived at by the domestic inquiry or the Tribunal is not based on record or is perverse in any manner. Therefore, in view of the settled principles of law established by the Supreme Court, the findings arrived at by the domestic inquiry as well as the Industrial Tribunal do not require any interference.
Accordingly, having found no merit, this was petition is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.