( 2026:JHHC:19125 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (L) No. 4519 of 2022 Employer in relation to the Management of Dobari Colliery under Bastascolla Area of M/s. BCCL (M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited), having its office at Bastacolla Area, P.O. & P.S. Bastacolla, District - Dhanbad (Jharkhand) through its Chief Manager (Personnel) / H.O.D. (Legal) Sri Ved Prakash, aged about 56 years, son of Late Radha Krishna Prasad, residing near Koyla Bhawan, PO BCCL Township, PS - Saraidhela, District - Dhanbad (Jharkhand). … … Petitioner Versus Their Workman represented through Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, through its Central Secretary having its office at Shramik Nagar, Bhuli, Block “E”, Sector-II, Qtr. No.483, PO- Bhuli (D), PS- Bhuli, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand). … … Respondent --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Ms. Swati Shalini, AC To Mr. A. K. Das, Sr. Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Uday Prakash, Advocate Mr. Manoj Kr. Sinha, Advocate --- 10/29.06.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. The instant Writ Petition has been filed against the Award dated 29.01.2021 (Annexure-6) passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad, in Reference Case No.78 of 2014, whereby reference has been answered in favour of the concerned workman and direction has been made to reinstate the concerned workman with 50% back-wages with all consequential benefits from the date of dismissal within one month from the date of publication of the Award. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner- M/s BCCL has submitted that so far as the background of the case is concerned, certain land was acquired and the husband of the concerned Workman, Late Fakir Chand, was given employment as per the scheme of the petitioner- M/s BCCL and after his death, his widow was given compassionate appointment and the widow is respondent in this case. 4. Charge-sheet dated 28.11.2012 was issued to the concerned workman. It has been alleged that the management had asked the concerned workman to handover the peaceful possession of 2.64 2/3 ( 2026:JHHC:19125 ) 2 acres of land to the BCCL, but he failed to give the possession of the land and another person, Ganesh Chand had been claiming employment against the said land and disturbing the possession of BCCL over the said land. Accordingly, it has been alleged that the husband of the concerned Workman and the concerned workman fraudulently obtained employment in BCCL. 5. A reply was filed by the concerned Workman disputing the allegations. The reply has been placed on record in the counter-affidavit at Annexure-E. 6. Learned counsel submits that the concerned Workman was subjected to the domestic enquiry and the domestic enquiry was held to be fair and proper vide order dated 09.07.2015 and it was for the learned Industrial Tribunal to examine the records of the Domestic Enquiry in the light of the provisions of Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Tribunal has interfered with the finding of the domestic enquiry and such interference is not as per the law and hence not permissible. Further, the learned Tribunal has also found that the punishment was disproportionate to the gravity of alleged misconduct and the order of punishment of dismissal dated 04.06.2013 has been set aside. 8. Learned counsel submits that the learned Tribunal has travelled beyond the scope of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore, the impugned award is fit to be set-aside. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent has opposed the prayer and has submitted that in the reply [Annexure-E to the counter- affidavit] it was pointed out by the concerned Workman that out of 2.64 acres of land, her husband’s share was 1/4th which was equivalent to 0.56 acres of land and the same was acquired by the BCCL through land acquisition proceeding vide L.A. Case No.30 of 1983-84 and possession of 0.56 acres was taken by the BCCL and compensation was also paid to her husband to that extent. It was also mentioned in the reply filed by the concerned workman that her husband had also sworn affidavit dated 18.05.1987 and had given it to the Management of the petitioner at the time of entering into employment in the year 1987. ( 2026:JHHC:19125 ) 3 10. He has further submitted that as per the reply itself, the husband of the concerned workman died in the month of August, 1995 and the present Workman was offered compassionate appointment and was offered employment in the year 1997. It was the specific case that her husband’s share, total of 0.56 acres of land, was acquired by the petitioner- BCCL whose possession was taken and further compensation was paid in the year 1983-84, that is, about 25 years back and during this period, petitioner-BCCL never raised any plea that they were not in possession of the land. 11. Learned counsel has submitted that merely because the domestic enquiry was held to be fair and proper that does not mean that the Industrial Tribunal cannot scrutinize the material and come to a different finding and certainly it is open to the Industrial Tribunal to also consider the gravity of alleged misconduct and the punishment inflicted. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that on both the counts, the Tribunal has passed the order in favour of the concerned workman. The learned counsel submits that there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment and the same has been passed in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1973) 1 SCC 813 [The Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd.] at Para 40 to 41A which reads as follows :- “40. Therefore, it will be seen that both in respect of cases where a domestic enquiry has been held as also in cases where the Tribunal considers the matter on the evidence adduced before it for the first time, the satisfaction under Section 11-A, about the guilt or otherwise of the workman concerned, is that of the Tribunal. It has to consider the evidence and come to a conclusion one way or other. Even in cases where an enquiry has been held by an employer and a finding of misconduct arrived at, the Tribunal can now differ from that finding in a proper case and hold that no misconduct is proved. 41. We are not inclined to accept the contentions advanced on behalf of the employers that the stage for interference under Section 11-A by the Tribunal is reached only when it has to consider the punishment after having accepted the finding of guilt recorded by an employer. It has to be remembered that a Tribunal may hold that the punishment is not justified because the misconduct alleged and found proved is such that it does not warrant ( 2026:JHHC:19125 ) 4 dismissal or discharge The Tribunal may also hold that the order of discharge or dismissal is not justified because the alleged misconduct itself is not established by the evidence. To come to a conclusion either way, the Tribunal will have to re-appraise the evidence for itself. Ultimately it may hold that the misconduct itself is not proved or that the misconduct proved does not warrant the punishment of dismissal or discharge. That is why, according to us, Section 11-A now gives full power to the Tribunal to go into the evidence and satisfy itself on both these points. Now the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to reappraise the evidence and come to its conclusion enures to it when it bas to adjudicate upon the dispute referred to it in which an employer relies on the findings recorded by him in a domestic enquiry. Such a power to appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion deciding a dispute on the basis of evidence adduced before it for the first about the guilt or otherwise was always recognised in a Tribunal when it was time. Both categories are now put on a par by Section 11-A. 41-A. Another change that has been effected by Section 11-A is the power conferred on a Tribunal to alter the punishment imposed by an employer. If the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the misconduct is established, either by the domestic enquiry accepted by it or by the evidence adduced before it for the first time, the Tribunal originally had no power to interfere with the punishment imposed by the management. Once the mis- conduct is proved, the Tribunal had to sustain the order of punishment unless it was harsh indicating victimisation. Under Section 11-A, though the Tribunal may hold that the misconduct is proved, nevertheless it may be of the opinion that the order of discharge or dismissal for the said misconduct is not justified. In other words, the Tribunal may hold that the proved misconduct does not merit punishment by way of discharge or dismissal. It can, under such circumstances, award to the workman only lesser punishment instead. The power to interfere with the punishment and alter the same has been now conferred on the Tribunal by Section 11-A” 13. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, it is not in dispute while hearing the instant case that the land total 2.64 2/3 acres was acquired by the BCCL and the husband of the concerned workman was granted employment as a land looser. It is further not in dispute that the husband of the concerned workman was granted compensation in L.A. Case No.30 of 1983-84 and in addition to the compensation, he was also granted employment. It is also not in dispute that the husband of the concerned workman was employed in the year 1987 and died in ( 2026:JHHC:19125 ) 5 the month of August, 1995 and thereafter the concerned workman herein was offered employment on compassionate ground in the year, 1997 and she has been working with the writ petitioner- M/s BCCL continuously. 14. A charge-sheet was issued to the concerned workman alleging that the concerned workman had not handed-over possession of 2.64 2/3 acres of land to the petitioner BCCL and there are other claimants, namely, Ganesh Chandra who are disturbing the possession of BCCL over the land. In this background, it was alleged that the husband of the concerned Workman and the concerned workman, appointed on compassionate ground, both have fraudulently obtained employment in BCCL. 15. The concerned workman responded to the charge-sheet by clearly stating that her husband had only 0.56 acres of land which was 1/4th of 2.64 acres and the land was acquired by the BCCL through L.A. Case No.30 of 1983-84 and possession of 0.56 acres was taken by BCCL and compensation was also paid to her husband to that extent only. An affidavit to this effect was also sworn by her husband dated 18.05.1987 and being satisfied, he was granted employment in the year 1987 and before entering into employment, the possession was taken and no objection with regard to possession was ever raised since the year 1983-84. 16. However, the concerned Workman was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and was dismissed vide order dated 04.06.2013 and the dispute between the Management and the Workman was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. 17. The Schedule of the dispute of the reference is as under: - “Whether the action of the management of Dobari Colliery under Bastacolla Area of M/s BCCL in dismissing Smt. Anjala Chandra Lathman from the services of the Company vide office order dated 04.06.2013 is fair and justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?” 18. Both the parties filed their written statement and the legality and validity of the domestic enquiry was examined before the Tribunal and vide order dated 09.07.2015, the enquiry was held to be fair and proper ( 2026:JHHC:19125 ) 6 and ultimately the matter was examined by the learned Tribunal in terms of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 19. The learned Tribunal took into consideration the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “The Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre”(supra) and it has been held that even in cases where an enquiry has been held by the employer and finding of misconduct has been arrived at, the Tribunal can differ from the finding in the proper case and hold that no misconduct is proved. In para-41 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it has been held that Section 11 A of the I.D. Act, gives full power to the Tribunal to go to the evidence and satisfy itself on both the points, that is finding of guilt of the workman and also proportionality of punishment inflicted. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a Tribunal may hold that the punishment is not justified because the misconduct alleged and found to be proved is such that it does not warrant dismissal or discharge and the Tribunal may also hold that the order of discharge or dismissal is not justified because the alleged misconduct itself is not established by the evidence. It has been further held that in order to come to a conclusion either way, the Tribunal will have to re-appraise the evidence for itself and ultimately, the tribunal may hold that the misconduct itself is not proved or that the misconduct proved does not warrant the punishment of dismissal or discharge. It has been held that Section 11-A of the I.D. Act gives full power to the Tribunal to go into the evidence and satisfy itself on both these points. 20. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal, after considering the materials on record, has come to an specific finding in Para-23 onwards wherein it was admitted in the domestic enquiry proceedings that the husband of the concerned workman was appointed under land looser scheme on the recommendation of the Committee dated 13.07.1987 and there is categorical evidence that the entire land of 2.64 2 /3 acres of land was acquired vide L.A. No.30 of 1983-84 and in the affidavit, Fakir Chandra (husband of the concerned workman ) had categorically stated that he had only 1/4th share of the acquired land and his share of land was already acquired by the BCCL and the land was vested in BCCL. ( 2026:JHHC:19125 ) 7 21. Further, the learned Tribunal recorded that during life time of Fakir Chandra (husband of the concerned workman) , the Management of the petitioner never raised the issue of handing over of possession of entire 2.64 acres 2 /3 acres of land although it was an specific affidavit of Fakir Chandra that he had only 1/4th share which was already acquired and vested in BCCL. The finding of the learned Tribunal in paragraphs 21 to 25 is quoted as under: - “21. At this stage it is essential to mention here that the Exhibit M-2 which is charge sheet issued by the Project Officer, Dobari Colliery to the concerned workwoman in which it is mentioned that her husband Late Fakir Chandra obtained employment in BCCL on land looser scheme against the 2.64 2/3 acres of land in plot no. 72, 73, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 162, 193, 219, 220, 232, 233 of Kahta no. 16 within Mouza Jharna and after his death she had been employed and had been asked to handover the peaceful possession of 2.64 2/3 acres of land to BCCL but she had failed to give the possession of the land till date. 22. Further in the enquiry proceeding (Exhibit M-6) the representative of the management Sri R.N. Singh has stated that Fakir Chandra husband of concerned workwoman Anjala Chandra was employed under land looser scheme on the basis of report dated /07/1987 of a committee and the land of Fakir Chandra was acquired by the company vide LA Case No. 30/83. He has also stated that Late Fakir Chandra had filed an affidavit dated 18/05/1987 showing there in that he had share of 0.56 acres (1/4th) out of 2.64 2/3 acres of land which is not as per recommendations of 30/07/1987. 23. Now, it is admitted in the enquiry proceeding that Late Fakir Chandra was appointed under the land looser scheme on the recommendation of the committee dated 30/07/1987 and there is a categorical evidence that the entire land of 2.64 2/3 acres land was acquired in LA Case No. 30/83. Moreover in the affidavit of Late Fakir Chandra it had been categorically stated that he had 1/4th share of the land situated in Mauza Jharna Khata no. 16 measuring 2.64 2/3 acres. Further in the enquiry report it has been mentioned that the entire land of 2.64 2/3 acres was acquired by the BCCL on payment of compensation, so the entire land vested to BCCL. Moreover 1/4th share of land of Late Fakir Chandra had also been acquired along with 2.64 2/3 acres of land, which also vested to the BCCL 24. It is further required to mention here that as per Rule 6 (i) (iii) of Land Looser Scheme (part of Enquiry Proceeding Exhibit M-6) there was no condition for acquisition of minimum area of the land on which employment would be given but the BCCL had accepted the 2.64 2/3 acres of land including 1/4th share of Late Fakir Chandra for giving him employment. Moreover during the lifetime of Late Fakir Chandra the management had not raised the issue of handing ( 2026:JHHC:19125 ) 8 over the possession of entire land of 2.64 2/3 acres of land and management had raised the issue after death of Late Fakir Chandra when his wife had been employed in his place under NCWA. 25. In view of above discussion it is very much clear that the share of hate Fakir Chandra husband of the concerned workwoman had been acquired by the BCCL and at that time there was no provision on the initiation of the area of acquisition of land for giving employment.” 22. Apart from the aforesaid, learned Tribunal was also of the view that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the gravity of alleged misconduct and the punishment imposed disturbed the conscience of the Court. The finding of the learned Tribunal in Paragraphs 28 and 29 of the impugned award is quoted hereunder: - “28. In view of such fact the Tribunal finds that the punishment of dismissal awarded to the concerned workman is being disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, so as to disturb the conscious of the court. 29. Hence, the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the order of dismissal of concerned workwoman is not fair and justified, so the punishment of dismissal order dated 04.06.2013 is set aside. ” 23. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned Award within the contours of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 when seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “The Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre” (supra). There is neither any perversity nor any illegality in the impugned award. The impugned award is well reasoned. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction conferred under section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is devoid of any merits, hence rejected. 24. Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. 25. Let this order be immediately communicated to the learned Tribunal through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 29.06.2026 Uploaded on. sandeep/-