Management of Usha Martin Ltd. through Its Senior Manager (Legal),Manas Verma Vs Dharmendra Kumar

2026:JHHC:936

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(L) No. 4145 of 2025

Management of Usha Martin Limited, a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act and having its office and works at, P.O. & P.S. Tatisilwai, District Ranchi, through its Senior Manager (Legal), Manas Verma, aged about 39 years, Son of Mukteshwar Verma and permanent Resident of C/o Mukteshwar Verma, resident of House No. 2902 Green Rose, Vijaya Gardens, Near Mercy Hospital, P.O. Baridih Colony, P.S. Sidhgora, Sub District Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum, PIN 831017 (Jharkhand). ..… Petitioner

¶5

Versus Dharmendra Kumar, son of Chandrika Singh, resident of Lane No.3, Adarsh Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Tatisilwai, District-Ranchi-835103, (Jharkhand).

¶6

..... Respondent

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate For the Respondent : In-Person ….….. C.A.V. ON 25/11/2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 08/01/2026

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

2. This writ petition has been filed seeking the quashing and setting aside of the Award dated 29.04.2025, passed in Reference Case No. 06/2021 (Annexure 12 to Writ Petition). Through this Award, the Management has been directed to reinstate the Respondent-workmen in service with 50% back wages and continuity in service. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 14/09/2023 (Annexure 8 of the writ petition), which held that the domestic enquiry conducted into the charges against the respondent, workmen was unfair and improper, primarily on the

¶11

1

¶12

2026:JHHC:936

¶13

grounds that outsider witnesses were not permitted by the enquiry officer in support of the delinquent workmen.

¶14

3. Chronology of Evidence and Background Facts

¶15

(i) During the Covid-19 pandemic, a nationwide lockdown was imposed. However, to ensure industrial productivity, the Government of India relaxed the restrictions for industries and permitted operations to resume from 20/04/2020. The Management issued a letter dated 09/06/2020, by registered post, to the respondent, Dharmendra Kumar, requiring his explanation for continued absence from duties even after 20/04/2020, without prior intimation or permission from his superiors. The petitioner refers to a general notice circulated on 17/04/2020, followed by another notice dated 05/07/2020, requesting all employees and workers to report to duty or contact their department heads/supervisors.

¶16

(ii) The respondent submitted his reply dated 14/06/2020, denying the Management’s allegations. He blamed the Management for not contacting him personally or informing him about his rotation duty and shift, and alleged that the show cause notice was a conspiracy against him.

¶17

(iii) On 18/06/2020, it is alleged that the respondent

¶18

2

¶19

2026:JHHC:936 was present at Factory Gate No. 3 at around 12:00 PM and raised slogans: “Management Murdabad, Management Chor hai, Maro in salon ko, Management Hosh mein aao.” The Management issued a charge sheet-cum-suspension letter on 19/06/2020 for major misconduct under Clause 23.2.2 of the certified standing orders of M/s Usha Martin Limited, which includes “riotous or disorderly behavior, threatening, intimidating, coercing other employees, assault or threat of assault… affecting company’s discipline.”

¶20

(iv) The respondent was asked to submit a written explanation to this charge sheet-cum-suspension letter within 72 hours. Dissatisfied with the explanation provided, the Management constituted a domestic enquiry, in which the workmen participated. The Management examined three witnesses in support of the charges i.e., Shyam Bahadur Gole, Jaswant Pradhan, and Ravindra Singh.

¶21

(v) Shyam Bahadur Gole, the security guard, recorded that the workman raised slogans and abused the Management at the factory gate, and he reported the incident to his in-charge, Jaswant Pradhan, by telephone. The other witnesses corroborated the security guard’s account.

¶22

(vi) The enquiry report submitted on 02/04/2021 found Dharmendra Kumar guilty of unauthorized absence

¶23

3

¶24

2026:JHHC:936

¶25

and disorderly conduct.

¶26

(vii) On 06/05/2021, the Petitioner - Management issued an order of punishment, dismissing the workman from service. With cases pending before the Industrial Tribunal at Ranchi, the order noted that an application was being filed before the Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, the approval application was not considered by the Tribunal, which remained vacant for over four years without any Presiding Officer.

¶27

(viii) The workman, seeing no prospect of an expeditious decision, raised a fresh industrial dispute under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The State Government issued Notification No. 1225 dated 22/10/2021, referring the following dispute under Section 10(1)(c) read with Section 10(2A):

¶28

“Whether the dismissal of workman Mr. Dharmendra Kumar from services by Management M/s Usha Martin & Industries Limited, Tatisilway, Ranchi is justified? If not, then what relief is he entitled to?”

¶29

4. The reference case was registered as Reference No. 6 of 2021. The Management filed a petition not to proceed, citing its prior approval application before the Tribunal. The workman had also filed Misc. Case No. 1/2021 before the Industrial Tribunal. The Petitioner’s objection to

¶30

4

¶31

2026:JHHC:936

¶32

maintainability was rejected on 06/06/2022 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi. This rejection was challenged in W.P.(L) No. 3043 of 2022, which was also dismissed on 14/05/2024. Consequently, the trial in Reference Case 6/2021 proceeded, with both parties submitting written statements.

¶33

5. The workman, in his written statement, claimed to have worked since 1995 and alleged that in 2016 he was assaulted inside the factory premises at the instance of the Management. He denied being informed about the resumption of work from 20/04/2020. He stated that he contacted his supervisor, Dhiraj Kumar, but was verbally informed that his machine was not functional and he would be informed when it became operational. He claimed to have submitted a written application dated 19/05/2020, but received no acknowledgment, and sent a reminder on 10/06/2020, again without acknowledgment. Regarding the charge of disorderly behavior and shouting slogans, he requested CCTV footage, which was not provided, and asserted that the allegations were false. He also stated that he goes to the factory gate daily for eight hours and returns without work.

¶34

6. The Management, in its written statement, contended that Dharmendra Kumar is an Office Bearer of the Trade

¶35

5

¶36

2026:JHHC:936

¶37

Union and closely associated with an outsider politician. Despite notices posted on the factory premises, the workman did not join duty, prompting the show cause notice dated 09/06/2020. The Management alleged that angered and infuriated by the notice, the Respondent raised anti-management slogans and used abusive language, leading to the enquiry and finding of guilt. The Management asserted there was no violation of natural justice and the punishment was proportionate and justified.

¶38

7. Evidence Before Labour Court:

¶39

The Management supported the charges and requested that the validity and propriety of the enquiry be tried as a preliminary issue. The Presiding Officer called for evidence of the Management on the point of validity of enquiry. By order dated 14/09/2023 in Reference Case 6/2021, the Labour Court found that the enquiry officer had not permitted examination of workmen witnesses on the ground that they were outsiders, rendering the domestic enquiry unfair and unjustified. However, the Management was allowed to prove the charges directly before the Labour Court.

¶40

8. The Management examined five witnesses:

¶41

6

¶42

2026:JHHC:936

¶43

i. Ravindra Singh (MW-1): Assistant Officer, time office. Testified about the workman’s unauthorized absence from 20/04/2020 to 18/06/2020. His testimony was limited to the charge of absence. ii. Dhiraj Kumar (MW-2): Shift supervisor. He stated that Dharmendra Kumar never applied to rejoin duty and that other workers had resumed work. He described the workman’s aggressive reply to the show cause notice and denied a false case had been set up due to union activity.

¶44

iii. Birendra Kumar Singh (MW-3): Production Manager. He testified about the absence of Dharmendra Kumar and recounted an aggressive and violent response from the workman on 18/06/2020. He has however, admitted that he was not an eyewitness to the incident at the gate.

¶45

iv. Shyam Bahadur Gole (MW-4): Security Guard. He is a key witness for disorderly misconduct. He clearly stated that on 18/06/2020, at around 12:00 PM, Dharmendra Kumar shouted slogans at Factory Gate No. 3. In cross-examination, explained he was the only guard present and there was no CCTV at Gate No. 3. In paragraph no. 04 of his examination-in-chief he testifies that he personally heard the Respondent, workman shout slogan “Management Murdabad, Management Chor hai, Maro in salon ko, Management Hosh mein aao.”. There is no cross examination on the sloganeering charge by the Respondent’s Representative. v. Jaswant Pradhan (MW-5): Shift Supervisor Security. This witness also confirmed that Shyam Bahadur Gole informed him by phone about the incident, and he arrived at the scene to see Dharmendra Kumar leaving. He reiterated the slogans and abusive language used. He however, admitted that he did not report the incident to the police and clarified that there was no CCTV with voice recording at Gate No. 3.

¶46

9. The Respondent, Dharmendra Kumar, was also examined as MW-1 in this case. He stated that he had worked satisfactorily with an unblemished record, goes

¶47

7

¶48

2026:JHHC:936

¶49

daily to the factory gate, and is not employed elsewhere. He admitted being appointed under a scheme for next of kin of employees and being the President of the union since 2014. 10. Two additional witnesses for the workman, Dhanram Bhutkumar and Anjani Kumar Pandey, testified only to seeing Dharmendra Kumar at the factory gate postdismissal.

¶50

11. The Management produced eight documents, including the security guard’s written complaint about the incident. The respondent, though he examined three witnesses but did not produce any documents.

¶51

12. The Award:

¶52

The Tribunal passed its Award on 29/04/2025 in Reference Case 6/2021, framing four issues:-

¶53

(a) Unauthorized absence;

¶54

(b) Disorderly conduct;

¶55

(c) Quantum of punishment;

¶56

(d) Reliefs.

¶57

After examining the records and evidence, the

¶58

Tribunal held that the Management failed to prove both unauthorized absence and disorderly conduct and directed reinstatement with 50% back wages and continuity in service.

¶59

13. Arguments of the Management:

¶60

8

¶61

2026:JHHC:936

¶62

The Petitioner - Management referred to the Award, focusing on findings related to unauthorized absence and disorderly conduct. It argued the respondent workman was given a proper show cause notice and could have resumed duty, but instead submitted an aggressive reply, indicating no intent to return. Subsequently, on 18/06/2020, the Respondent shouted slogans and used abusive language at Factory Gate No. 3.

¶63

The Management contended that the finding in the Award was perverse, failing to acknowledge clear evidence, particularly from MW-4, Shyam Bahadur Gole, who testified to the use of abusive language during the incident. 14. The Management contended that it had proved the charges both in the enquiry and before the Court. In support of his contention on the standard of proof, admissibility of evidence, gravity of misconduct, and judicial review for perverse findings it relied on following decisions:-

¶64

(a) Management of Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited vs. M. Mani¹ , (b) J.D Jain Vs. Management of State Bank of India² ,

¶65

(c) Mahindra & Mahindra Limited vs. N.B Narawade³ ,

¶66

(d) Atlas Cycle Haryana Limited vs. Kitab Singh⁴ .

¶67

15. Argument of the Workmen:

¶68

1 (2018) 1 SCC 285

¶69

2 (1982) 1 SCC 143

¶70

3 (2005) 3 SCC 134

¶71

4 (2013) 12 SCC 573

¶72

9

¶73

2026:JHHC:936

¶74

The Respondent appeared in person and supported the Award, arguing a history of enmity with the Management and asserting that charges were false and malicious. He emphasized his unblemished service record and denied unjustified absence, claiming a conspiracy to remove him. He stated that he was not allowed to resume duties after the lockdown, and his written replies were suppressed.

¶75

16. Findings:

¶76

Upon examination of the records and evidence, two

¶77

main issues arise:

¶78

1 .Whether the order holding the enquiry to be unfair and unjustified was valid.

¶79

2.Whether the Management proved the charges in the Labour Court.

¶80

17. The order dated 14/09/2023 invalidated the enquiry due to exclusion of outsider witnesses, which was correct given the incident occurred outside the factory gate. Even though ordinarily, an outsider may not be permitted in domestic enquiry, this case relates to an incident right outside the factory gate. Accordingly, the order invalidating enquiry calls for no interference.

¶81

18. The Management was then allowed to present evidence directly to prove the charges in Labour Court. The testimony of Shyam Bahadur Gole (MW4), who witnessed and reported the abusive slogans, was clear and

¶82

10

¶83

2026:JHHC:936

¶84

uncontradicted. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court in paragraph no. 24 of the award refers to the documents and concludes that there is no evidence that Dharmendra Kumar used abusive words at the factory gate.

¶85

This is obviously perverse as Shyam Bahadur Gole, a Security Guard and co-worker of the Respondent, mentions in paragraph no. 04 of his testimony that Dharmendra Kumar came to the gate and shouted “ Management Murdabad, Management Chor hai, Maro in salon ko, Management Hosh mein aao.”.

¶86

The Award’s finding that no abusive words were used is thus, perverse, overlooking direct oral evidence which remains unrebutted in the cross examination.

¶87

As a matter of fact, the workman’s own testimony did not specifically deny the charges; his evidence focused on claims for back wages rather than rebutting the allegations. No documents were produced to support claims of conspiracy, and as President of the trade union, he could have raised grievances with labour authorities if deliberately prevented from resuming duties. The workman refers to written protests and complaints but no documents were given in evidence.

¶88

19. The Award completely overlooked material evidence, particularly, the testimony of MW-4, and failed to exercise

¶89

11

¶90

2026:JHHC:936

¶91

proper jurisdiction. The Labour Court has also adopted an incorrect standard of proof. It is now, settled proposition of law that in disciplinary proceedings the standard of proof is “preponderance of probabilities” and not “proof beyond reasonable doubt”. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana & Anr. v. Rattan Singh⁵ was dealing with the issue of non-examination of passengers when the allegation against the conductor was non-issuance of the tickets. It was held that in a domestic enquiry, strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply and that all materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. The Apex Court held as under:

¶92

“4. It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and Administrative Tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor text books, although we have been taken through case-law and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fairplay is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good. However, the courts below misdirected themselves, perhaps, in insisting that passengers who had come in and gone out should be chased and brought before the

¶93

5 (1977) 2 SCC 491

¶94

12

¶95

2026:JHHC:936

¶96

tribunal before a valid finding could be recorded. The ‘residuum’ rule to which counsel for the respondent referred, based upon certain passages from American Jurisprudence does not go to that extent nor does the passage from Halsbury insist on such rigid requirement. The simple point is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence — not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular court proceedings but in a fair commonsense way as men of understanding and worldly wisdom will accept. Viewed in this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in support of a finding is certainly available for the court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record. ………..”

¶97

20. Further, the Labour Court has placed the onus on the Management as if it was under an obligation to prove the charges without any shadow of doubt. It has been argued by the Respondent that not filing FIR with police itself falsifies the case of the Petitioner. It is not necessary to report every misdemeanour of an employee to the police and it is irrational and unreasonable to assume that unless an act is a criminal offence it cannot be a misconduct for which an employer can take action. Such a perverse finding warrants interference under judicial review. Legal precedents cited support the threshold for proof and the limited but necessary scope of judicial intervention in cases of error or perversity.

¶98

21. Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act allows the Labour Court to review the proportionality of punishment. In this case, the respondent’s conduct constituted grave misconduct, particularly given his union leadership role, which could incite other workers and disrupt industrial

¶99

13

¶100

2026:JHHC:936

¶101

harmony. The Supreme Court’s decision in Mahindra & Mahindra Limited vs. N.B Narawade⁶ followed in Hombe

¶102

Gowda Educational Trust vs. State of Karnataka⁷ and L.K. Verma vs. HMT Limited⁸ affirm the seriousness of such abusive behaviour and the Management’s right to take action. In L.K. Verma case it was held pithily that “So far as the contention as regards quantum of punishment is concerned, suffice it to say that verbal abuse has been held to be sufficient for inflicting a punishment of dismissal.” (Paragraph no. 22).

¶103

22. The Respondent-Workman had contended that an award cannot be quashed unless there is perversity. This aspect needs to be examined before reaching the conclusions. There is no denial that the award can be quashed only for jurisdictional errors and perversity.

¶104

23. In K.V.S. Ram Vs. Bangalore Metropolitan

¶105

Transport Corporation,⁹ the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-

¶106

10. In the writ petition, while setting aside the award of the Labour Court, the learned Single Judge placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in Punjab Water Supply Sewerage Board v. Ram Sajivan [Punjab Water Supply Sewerage Board v. Ram Sajivan, (2007) 9 SCC 86 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 668] and also another judgment of the High Court and observed that a person who practices fraud for securing employment cannot perpetuate on the ground of delay and the

¶107

6 (2005) 3 SCC 134

¶108

7 (2006) 1 SCC 430

¶109

8 (2006) 2 SCC 269

¶110

9 (2015) 12 SCC 39

¶111

14

¶112

2026:JHHC:936

¶113

learned Single Judge faulted the Labour Court for exercising discretion under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and interfering with the punishment of dismissal from service. In our considered view, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can interfere with the order of the tribunal, only, when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of tribunal and courts subordinate to it or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. In our view, when the Labour Court has exercised its discretion keeping in view the facts of the case and the cases of similarly situated workmen, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the exercise of discretion by the Labour Court.

¶114

11. In Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan [Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477], the Constitution Bench of this Court considered the scope of the High Court's jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari in cases involving challenge to the orders passed by the authorities entrusted with quasi-judicial functions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939…….”

¶115

24. In Atlas Cycle Haryana Limited vs. Kitab Singh

¶116

(Supra) , the Supreme Court analyzed the issue of perversity

¶117

in the context of industrial adjudication and held as under:

¶118

15. We are satisfied that the learned Single Judge thoroughly analysed all the aspects and arrived at a correct conclusion. It is settled law that when the Labour Court arrived at a finding overlooking the materials on record, it would amount to perversity and the writ court would be fully justified in interfering with the said conclusion. We are conscious of the fact that the High Court exercising writ of certiorari jurisdiction would not permit to assume the role of the appellate court, however, the Court is well within its power to interfere if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal/Labour Court had erroneously refused to admit the admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted any inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding, the writ court would be justified in exercising its remedy. In other words, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari.

¶119

(Emphasis added)

¶120

25. In the instant case, while recording the finding that no abusive words were spoken by the Respondent, the Labour Court completely overlooked the oral unrebutted testimony of the security guard who was examined as MW4 to prove

¶121

the charge directly in the Labour Court. He has given his

¶122

15

¶123

2026:JHHC:936

¶124

eye witness account of the incident. This coupled with the workman’s failure to even deny the charge while testifying on merits of the charges in Labour Court does not justify the findings in the award.

¶125

26. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, this Court holds that the Ld. Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Ranchi, committed a grave error and recorded a perverse finding, particularly regarding the charge of disorderly conduct by the respondent workman.

¶126

27. Accordingly, the Award dated 29.04.2025, passed in Reference Case No. 06/2021 is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed. Pending I.A.s, if any, also stands closed.

¶127

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶128

Dated:08/01/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R Uploaded

¶129

08/01/2026

¶130

16

Management of Usha Martin Ltd. through Its Senior Manager (Legal),Manas Verma v. Dharmendra Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Management of Usha Martin Ltd. through Its Senior Manager (Legal),Manas Verma v. Dharmendra Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nand Deo Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Birendra Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shardanand Prasad Vs the Central Coalfields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Dr Smita Kumari Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amrendra Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand