1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 32 of 2015 1 - The Superintendent Of Post Aged About 18 Years Department Of Posts, Bilaspur Division, Post And District Bilaspur, Through Senior Post Master, Head Post Office, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur C.G., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Shri Santram Patre S/o Ex-Branch Postmaster Munmuna Pandariya, Tahsil District Bilaspur C.G., Chhattisgarh 2 - Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh., District : Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Ramakant Mishra, Dy. S.G. alnogwith Shri Neeraj Baghel, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Suresh Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29.08.2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the award passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court dated 25.4.2014, whereby the reference was answered in the affirmative and an award of reinstatement with 40% back-wages was passed. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, made a reference to the NIRMALA RAO 2 Tribunal according to the provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which reads as under:- “Whether the action of the management of Superintendent of Post Office, Bilaspur in terminating the services of Shri Sanat Ram EDA w.e.f. 30-12-89 is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to?" 2. The workman was posted as Branch Postmaster, Munmuna (Pandariya), District Bilaspur, between 31.7.1979 to 30.12.1989. It is alleged that he was a habitual absentee. It was also alleged that he lost two receipts, i.e., Receipt Nos. 87 & 89 and failed to comply with the directions issued by the Superior Authorities. Furthermore, it was alleged that he accepted a bribe of Rs. 2,000/- to remove receipt No. 89 from the Branch records. 3. The workman submitted a reply to the article of charge dated 7.3.1990. A departmental enquiry was conducted, and a penalty of termination from service was inflicted vide order dated 25.10.1990, with effect from 30.12.1989. The workman pleaded that a proper enquiry was not conducted; he was not permitted to cross-examine the departmental witnesses, and relevant documents were not provided. He had prayed for reinstatement with full back-wages. 4. The petitioner filed a reply denying the averments of the statement of claim. It was contended that serious allegations were made against the workman. A full-fledged departmental enquiry was conducted, during which witnesses were examined, and the workman was afforded sufficient opportunity. Thereafter, an appropriate penalty was imposed. 3 5. Learned Tribunal vide order dated 8.8.2011 decided the preliminary issue and held that the departmental enquiry conducted by the management against the workman was neither proper nor legal. 6. Learned Tribunal further held that the management was required to prove the charges by adducing clinching evidence. Learned Tribunal considered the affidavit of the management’s witness, namely Thakur Ram Deewan, who stated that the enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer; a Presenting Officer was appointed, and the witnesses were examined. However, he admitted that Mr. M.K. Jain was not an Enquiry Officer. In cross-examination, he admitted that he did not know the position of the workman or the specific allegations made against him. 7. Learned Tribunal passed the award of reinstatement with 50% back- wages. A perusal of the evidence of the management’s witness would clearly indicate that he was unaware of (I) the allegations made against the workman, (ii) the complaints made against the workman, (iii) the facts with regard to receipt No. 89, or the enquiry conducted in this regard. Therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly recorded the findings against the petitioner in favour of the workman. 8. Vide order dated 8.8.2011, the learned Tribunal had decided the preliminary issue and concluded that the departmental enquiry conducted by the management was neither proper nor legal. The petitioner failed to challenge the said order, and it attained finality. 9. Considering the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the decision of the learned Tribunal. 4 10. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi