An award by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication due to its contradictory reasoning and failure to uphold the findings of a domestic inquiry.
Quashed and set aside the award dated 5/10/2006 and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
WP-1719.07
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1719 OF 2007
| CHIEF WORKS MANAGER |
) | |
|---|---|---|
| Chief Workshop Manager's Office |
) | |
| Central Railway Locomotive Workshop | ) | |
| Parel, Mumbai 400 012 |
).. |
PETITIONER |
| Versus | ||
| P. D. RAIDAS |
) | |
| Through the President, |
) | |
| Indian Railway Technical Staff |
) | |
| Association, 2 Mahabvir Yadav |
) | |
| Chawl, N. D. Road, Andheri |
) | |
| Mumbai 400 069 |
).. |
RESPONDENT |
Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
CORAM:-M. S. SONAK, J.
DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT IS RESERVED : 4th JULY, 2014 DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT IS RONOUNCED: 11th JULY, 2014
ORAL JUDGMENT :
2 Heard Mr. Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 is neither present nor represented.
1/6
2
WP-1719.07
award dated 5/10/2006 made in Reference No. CGIT-08 of 2004.
4 The Central Government, in exercise of its powers under clause (d) of sub-Section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ the said Act ”) on 2/1/2004 made the following reference to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal:
“Whether the action of the management of Chief Workshop Manager, Central Railway, Parel Workshop, Parel, Mumbai in not conducting the enquiry in proper manner against Shri P. D. Raidas JE-I is justified? If not, what relief Shri P. D. Raidas, JE-I is entitled to ?”
5 The Industrial Tribunal in the impugned award has expressed the opinion that the terms of reference are “ funny ”. In the opinion of the Industrial Tribunal, the term of reference do not enable the Tribunal to go into the issue as to whether the domestic inquiry held against the workman was fair and proper. In any case, the Tribunal has observed that at the stage when the reference was made, based upon the report of the Enquiry Officer, penalty of reversion had been awarded to the workman. As such, it was for the workman to have approached the appropriate Government to
2/6
3
WP-1719.07
obtain a modification of the terms of reference, so that appropriate relief in the context of penalty of reversion could have been considered by the Industrial Tribunal. After having made these observations, however, the Industrial Tribunal has recorded the following conclusion;
in terms. There is no discussion whatsoever on the aspect of fairness of the enquiry. The impugned award seems to suggest that the Tribunal was of the opinion that it cannot go into the issue of fairness of the award. In such circumstances, the ultimate conclusion to the effect that the action of the management in not conducting the enquiry in a proper manner being not justifiable, is clearly unsustainable.
7 Although it is true that the terms of reference have not been happily worded, nevertheless the Tribunal is required to bear in mind that terms of an industrial reference must not be construed in a
3/6
4
WP-1719.07
pedantic manner. The employer, after conduct of domestic inquiry has imposed a penalty upon workman. It is the case of the workman that the domestic inquiry was neither fair nor proper. This is the basic dispute by and between the parties. The terms of reference, though inartistically worded, simply mean that the Tribunal is required to find out whether the domestic inquiry was fair and proper and if not whether the penalty imposed is justified. 8 In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no option but to quash and set aside the impugned award dated 5/10/2006 and remand the matter to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Mumbai for fresh adjudication in the light of observations contained in the present judgment and order. No other issue is being adverted to.
9 Mr. Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance upon the order made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Korga Bhandari v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. & Ors, (2005) 6 SCC 451 , has submitted that the issue as to whether employees holding a civil post can seek relief under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been
4/6
5
WP-1719.07
referred to a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court. Mr. Suresh Kumar submits that liberty be granted to the petitioner to raise such issue, in the event the Central Government Industrial Tribunal makes any award adverse to the petitioner. Accordingly such liberty is expressly reserved in favour of the petitioner.
10 Subject to the aforesaid, the impugned award dated 5/10/2006 made by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal for fresh adjudication, in the light of observations made in this judgment and order, including in particular, the observation made in paragraph 7 hereof.
11 As the respondent has not appeared before this court, this court requests the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, to issue a fresh notice to the workman, prior to proceeding with the matter. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal should endeavour to complete the adjudication within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the writ of this court.
12 Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order
5/6
6
WP-1719.07
as to costs. (M. S. SONAK, J.) md.saleem
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the imputed award of the Industrial Tribunal is sustainable in light of contradictory terms regarding the fairness of the domestic inquiry.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Umesh Korga Bhandari v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.Referred¶33
Umesh Korga Bhandari v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. & Ors, (2005) 6 SCC 451 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chief Works Manager, Central Railway Locomotive Workshop
P. D. Raidas
M. S. Sonak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
