2025:JHHC:35830 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(L) No. 2198 of 2002 --- 1. Praveen Chandra Mishra 2. Prabhat Chandra Mishra 3. Pankaj Mishra All (legal heirs) sons of the deceased petitioner. …. Petitioners Versus 1. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labuor Court No.1, Dhanbad 2. Employer in relation to the Management of Swang Washery of Central Coalfields Limited, Swang, District- Bokaro ……Respondents --- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Sahani, Advocate For the Respondents : M/s. A.K.Mehta, Manish Kumar, Pratyush, Advocates --- C.A.V ON. 06.11.2025 PRONOUNCED ON:01/12/2025 The instant writ application was initially preferred by the original-petitioner for quashing the Award dated 22.01.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad in Reference Case no. 220 of 1994. Since, the original-petitioner died during pendency of this application, he was substituted by his legal heirs. 2. By order dated 26.08.1994, the Central Government has referred the following disputes for adjudication to the Tribunal;- “ Whether the action of the Management of Swang Washery of M/s. C.C.L. P.O. Swang, District Bokaro in dismissing Shri R.K.Mishra, Foreman-Incharge with effect from 18.03.1993 is justified? if not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?” 2025:JHHC:35830 2 3. It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that during pendency of Reference Case No. 177 of 1990 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. I, Dhanbad, the original petitioner was served with the charge-sheets, which were opposed by him by filing objection-petitions. Without disposing of such objection- petitions and without adhering to the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Project Officer, carrying grudge and bias against the Petitioner, appointed an Inquiry officer, who issued a notice on 27/2/1993 and fixing 5/3/1993 as the date of enquiry to be held in the office of the General Manager (KTA), Kathara which was received by the Petitioner on 2/3/1993 but no enquiry was held on the said place and no information was given to the Petitioner about change of venue and time of enquiry. But, behind the back of the petitioner, in a very haste manner, the Inquiry Officer prepared a table report showing ex parte enquiry. Even the enquiry was concluded on a single day in absence of the Petitioner. No copy of the Inquiry report was provided to the Petitioner as required under the settled principle of law causing serious prejudice to the case of the petitioner. No show cause notice was issued, after the Inquiry report, and all of a sudden, the order of dismissal was issued on 17/3/1993 which was published in a newspaper. All such actions taken by the Disciplinary 2025:JHHC:35830 3 Authority as well as Inquiry Officer, are nothing but a mere empty formality showing that the Respondents pre- determined the issue and arbitrarily and in a haste manner, imposed punishment of dismissal against the Petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners lastly submits that due to passage of time and pendency of the writ application, since the original petitioner, Rama Kant Mishra @ R.K.Mishra, is no more and he has been substituted by his legal heirs; as such, looking to the nature of charges he prays that the order of termination may be substituted by some lessor punishment keeping in view of past conduct and since the original-petitioner had already died, necessary consequential benefits be extended to the legal heirs. 5. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents had submitted that once the fairness of domestic enquiry has been held to be legal and valid and the workman had not challenged the validity of enquiry; now only thing which can be looked into by this Court is with regard to quantum of punishment as stipulated in Section 11-A of I. D. Act, 1947 and since the Tribunal exhaustively and extensively had discussed about the gravity of charges and came to the conclusion against this workman; even the quantum of punishment need not be interfered. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the Award, it is evidently clear that the fairness of domestic enquiry has been held to be valid. In 2025:JHHC:35830 4 Para-4 of the Award which is impugned herein, the learned Tribunal has categorically held that “It is pertinent to mention at the outset that during the pendency of the present proceeding by order dated 06.02.2001 after hearing both the sides on preliminary issue/point, the domestic enquiry has already been held to be fair and proper and pursuant to which the case was fixed for hearing on merit under Section 11-A of I. D. Act, 1947.” 7. From the record, it appears that the fairness of domestic enquiry has not been questioned by the workman and as such the only thing which can be looked into is with regard to quantum of punishment which is indicated in Section 11-A of I. D. Act, 1947. For brevity, Section 11-A of I. D. Act, 1947 is quoted hereinbelow: “Section 11-A. Powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.-Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or given such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require. Provided that in any proceeding under this section the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, a the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter.” 8. Accordingly, this Court is proceeding to see as to whether the punishment is commensurate with the charges levelled against the workman and whether the same requires 2025:JHHC:35830 5 interference, for which the nature of charge is to be seen. For brevity few of the charges in connection with different charge-sheets are indicated hereinbelow: (i) In the charge-sheet dated 28.01.1993 the Charge no. 1 was with respect to threatening, and abusing one of the authorities of the Management on 14.01.1993; (ii) Charge no. 2 was with respect to willfully damaging the work in progress on 13.12.1992. (iii) Charge no. 3 was with respect to making irregular attendance of the workman and forcibly signing of the attendance register. (iv) Charge no. 4 relates to deliberate refusal to accept the office communication. (v) Charge no. 5, which is very grievous in nature, is with regard to creating communal disturbances. (vi) In the charge-sheet dated 30.01.1993, charge no. 1 was with respect to refusal and threatening given by the concerned workman. (vii) Charge no. 2 relates to forcibly entering into washery premise. (viii) In the Charge-sheet dated 12.02.93, charge nos. 1 and 2 are connected where, the concerned workman along with 10 outsiders unauthorizedly forcibly entered the office room of the senior personnel officer. (ix) Charge nos. 4 & 5 are connected where, the concerned workman along with 150 to 200 persons moved around the concerned washery plant unauthorizedly exploding explosive with a view to create panic and intimidate to the workman. 9. The purpose of referring the charges; is only with a view to see as to whether the quantum of punishment is commensurate with the charges. 10. From the entire order-sheet, it appears that the charges have been proved and learned Presiding Officer has held categorically in Para-12 as such. For brevity, relevant potion of the paragraph-12 is extracted hereunder: “Although certain documents filed by the concerned workman are those filed in connection with preliminary issue relating to fairness of enquiry, but even those documents are to be considered at this stage also …………..” In the said paragraph, the learned Presiding Officer has referred to several Exhibits and observed as under: 2025:JHHC:35830 6 “…………….are for the purpose of showing that the concerned workman was an office bearer of Swang Washery Branch of Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh and in that capacity from time to time he had been raising the grievances against the action of the Management Authorities……….” In the said paragraph, the learned Presiding Officer has further held as under: “…………..being an office bearer of the Union or a Trade Union Leader does not mean that the person concerned is immune from discipline and good conduct and can get away with gross instances of misconduct and indiscipline on his part merely by taking shelter under his position in a particular Trade Union. Rather, on the contrary, being a Trade Union Leader he is required to set an example of good conduct and high standard of discipline and to raise grievances on behalf of the workman in a proper and peaceful manner…………………” In the said paragraph, learned Presiding Officer has further held as under: “………………Significantly in their statements made they have stated in so many words that such violent demonstration was being regularly arranged by R.K.Mishra, the concerned workman, who was Secretary of R.C.M.S., Swang Branch, without any resolution being passed by the Branch Executive Committee………………” Learned Presiding Officer further noted that one Nandlal Sah also seems to have stated that the entire committee was opposed to such activities of R.K.Mishra as none of the employees was supporting his activities. 11. 11. By referring to all the above documents, the learned Presiding Officer held that the quantum of punishment awarded to the concerned workman w.r.t. gravity of charges against him does not require any interference. 12. This Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has meticulously dealt with each and every charges while 2025:JHHC:35830 7 determining the quantum of punishment, and as aforesaid; few of the charges referred to hereinabove clearly indicates that it was not only for willfully damaging the work in progress but also for forcibly making irregular attendance and also with regard to entering the premises with a mob and threatening the employees and tried to forcibly snatch away official papers, and last but not the least, the concerned workman along with mob of more than 200 persons moved around the washery plant and exploded explosive with a view to create panic and also create communal tension. All these go to show that no sympathy can be shown to the original-petitioner by looking to the proved charges; as such, since at this stage, the only thing which can be looked into, is with regard to quantum of punishment; however, after going through the finding given in the Award, the same requires no interference. 13. Accordingly, the instant application stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. 14. Pending I.A(s), if any, stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Jk Uploaded on 02 /12/2025 N.A.F.R/A.F.R