2025:JHHC:18029 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(L). No. 4244 of 2003 ---------- 1. Salauddin Ansari, aged about 47 years; 2. Mishwa Uddin Ansari, aged about 42 years; 3. Sagufta Khatoon, aged about 56 years; 4. Saydda Parween, aged abouted 45 years; 5. Rehana Parween, aged about 41 years; 6. Saheena Naj, aged about 35 years; All are residents of village-Mahuda Basti, P.O. & P.S. Mahuda, District Dhanbad. ………. Petitioners Versus Employers in relation to the Management of Mahuda Area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Mahuda, P.S. Mahuda, District Dhanbad. ………. Respondent. ---------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Pratyush, Advocate ---------- C.A.V. on 18/06/2025 Pronounced on 03/07/2025 The instant application is directed against the Award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Reference No. 55 of 1994 dated 20.08.2002, whereby the reference has been decided against the Petitioner and the learned Tribunal has categorically held that the action of the General Manager, Mahuda Area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited in dismissing the concerned workman Farid Ansari, Leave Clerk, Murlidih Colliery w.e.f. 05.05.1992 is justified and the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief. 2. The brief facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The original-petitioner namely, Farid Ansari was employed as a Leave Clerk at Murulidih Colliery. He was served with an order of dismissal on account of manipulation of attendance records to falsely show more than 75 days of 2025:JHHC:18029 2 attendance for certain employees. A domestic inquiry was conducted, and he was found guilty of misconduct, resulting in an order to dismiss him from service. The dispute was then referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, for adjudication. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the General Manager of Mahuda Area to dismiss the original- petitioner, ruling that it was justified and that he was not entitled to any relief. Regarding the fairness of the domestic inquiry, the Tribunal concluded that it was conducted properly and fairly. Aggrieved by the Award rendered by the Tribunal, the original-petitioner had preferred the present writ application; however, during pendency of this Case, he died and the present Petitioners have been substituted at his place. 3. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel representing the Petitioners contended that the Tribunal's findings are unsustainable in law and fact, being based on mere presumptions and assumptions, which vitiates the entire Award. Learned counsel further contended that despite filing an application, the management failed to produce relevant documents. The Tribunal erred by not drawing an adverse inference against the management for this failure. Learned counsel further contended that the Award reflects discriminatory treatment and double standards, particularly as the Inquiry Officer's findings indicated that the actual culprit was spared while the original-petitioner was penalized. Furthermore, the Tribunal wrongly appreciated the material on record and misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s decision in 1997 SCC (L&S) 1486, leading to an erroneous conclusion. Learned counsel lastly contended that the punishment of dismissal was harsh and disproportionate to the nature of the alleged misconduct, especially since the assigned duties had no direct nexus with the charges levelled against the original-petitioner. 4. Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, learned counsel justifying the action of the Respondents contended that the Award of the Tribunal does not require 2025:JHHC:18029 3 any interference by this Court as the same is based on finding of facts. To support his contention, learned counsel cited judgment rendered in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohan Lal Gupta1 to assert that Courts, including Labour Courts, cannot substitute the employer's findings or alter punishment when the enquiry is fair. Learned counsel for the respondent further cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India and Anr. Vs. Degala Suryanarayana2, and argued that departmental enquiry findings can't be re-appreciated, and the Tribunal rightly held the original-petitioner had erred in not verifying the records. Learned counsel further argued that the Tribunal's findings are based on evidence without any perversity, and the punishment of dismissal is proportionate to the proven misconduct, requiring no interference. It has been lastly submitted by Mr. Mehta that fresh evidence is allowed only if the domestic enquiry is found unfair, otherwise, no party can lead new evidence, as per the Proviso to Section 11-A of the ID Act, 1947. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned Award, at the outset it is clarified that once domestic enquiry is held to be fair and proper, the scope of interference is only limited to the quantum of punishment. 6. Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which empowers Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunals, and National Tribunals to alter or set aside an order of dismissal or discharge of a workman and grant suitable relief; if the original action is found to be unjustified. However, the proviso to this section restricts the Courts from considering any evidence beyond what is already on record. 7. In the instant case, the Industrial Tribunal concluded that the domestic enquiry conducted was fair and proper. Accordingly, the Tribunal rightly held that the original-petitioner was not entitled to any relief. 1 2001 Lab 1.C. 2122 2 AIR 1999 SC 2407 (para 11) 2025:JHHC:18029 4 Further, on the quantum of punishment, the allegation that on account of manipulation of attendance records to falsely show more than 75 days of attendance for certain employees, is certainly a grave allegation, which does not require any mercy. Accordingly, no relief can be granted to the present-petitioners. 8. Resultantly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) kunal/-