The High Court of Jharkhand has set aside a 2003 award by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), Dhanbad, and ordered the reinstatement of a workman dismissed by M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (BCCL) in 1992. In a judgment delivered on August 21, 2025, Justice Sanjay Prasad ruled that the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman was in “complete violation of principles of natural justice” and that the subsequent dismissal was unsustainable.
The writ petition challenged the award of the CGIT which had upheld the dismissal of petitioner Rajmuni Bhuinya. The High Court, after a detailed examination of the case records, quashed the tribunal’s award and directed BCCL to reinstate Mr. Bhuinya with all consequential benefits. If he has already reached the age of superannuation, the court ordered payment of 75% of back wages until that date.
Background of the Case
The case originates from an incident on November 30, 1990, when Rajmuni Bhuinya, a permanent employee at BCCL’s Kankani Colliery, was accused of stealing a seven-foot-long armoured copper cable valued at approximately Rs. 700. A criminal case under Sections 379 (theft) and 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property) of the Indian Penal Code was instituted against him.
Following the allegation, BCCL initiated a departmental enquiry. Based on the findings of this enquiry, Mr. Bhuinya was dismissed from service with effect from May 22, 1992. Subsequently, on September 23, 1995, a Judicial Magistrate in Dhanbad acquitted Mr. Bhuinya in the criminal case, noting the prosecution’s failure to produce witnesses.
An industrial dispute was raised, which was referred to the CGIT-2, Dhanbad. On February 19, 2003, the tribunal passed an award in favour of the BCCL management, justifying the dismissal. This award was the subject of the present writ petition before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner, represented by Advocate Mr. Birendra Kumar, argued that the tribunal’s award was illegal and arbitrary. It was contended that the tribunal erred in relying on a concession made by the workman’s counsel regarding the fairness of the domestic enquiry, stating that such a concession cannot override the cause of justice in beneficial industrial legislation. The petitioner also argued that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself during the enquiry and that the tribunal failed to consider the legal effect of his acquittal in the criminal case.
Conversely, the respondents, BCCL, represented by Advocate Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, defended the tribunal’s award as “fit and proper.” They submitted that the High Court should not interfere with the tribunal’s findings of fact under its writ jurisdiction. BCCL argued that the workman’s union had conceded that the enquiry was fair and proper. It was further asserted that an acquittal in a criminal case, which occurred over three years after the dismissal, does not automatically exonerate an employee in a departmental proceeding.
High Court’s Analysis and Findings
Justice Sanjay Prasad undertook a thorough review of the records from the domestic enquiry and the industrial tribunal. The Court found several grave procedural illegalities in the domestic enquiry, leading it to conclude that the proceedings were unfair.
The Court observed, “it is abundantly clear that the entire enquiry was held against the petitioner in complete violation of principles of natural justice.” The judgment highlighted specific lapses:
- The enquiry report was never served upon the petitioner.
- No second show-cause notice regarding the proposed punishment of dismissal was issued.
- The petitioner was not provided with copies of the witness statements used against him.
The Court heavily criticized the tribunal for overlooking these fundamental flaws. It noted that the tribunal was “swayed by the fact that the petitioner was caught with the Armoured Copper wire” and failed to independently scrutinize the enquiry proceedings.
A crucial point of law addressed was the non-supply of the enquiry report. Citing the landmark Supreme Court decision in Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad Versus B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727, the High Court reiterated that this failure constitutes a denial of reasonable opportunity and violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The judgment quoted from Karunakar: “The failure to supply copy thereof to the delinquent would be unfair procedure offending not only Articles 14, 21 and 311(2) of the Constitution, but also, the principles of natural justice.”
Furthermore, the Court held that the tribunal failed to properly consider the petitioner’s acquittal in the criminal case. While the acquittal was on technical grounds, the court noted that the basis for the departmental charges was the same as the criminal case, and this basis was “demolished” by the acquittal.
The High Court also referred to a recent Supreme Court judgment in Maharana Pratap Singh vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 890), which held that where the charges and evidence in both departmental and criminal proceedings are identical, upholding dismissal after an acquittal would be “unjust, unfair, and oppressive.”
The Final Decision
In light of these findings, the Court concluded that the tribunal had committed a “grave error.”
The final order stated: “The Award dated 19.02.2003 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2 at Dhanbad in Reference No.128 of 1995…is set aside and the writ petitioner is directed to be reinstated forthwith with all the consequential benefits.”
Considering that over 33 years had passed since the dismissal, the Court decided against remitting the matter back to the tribunal. It provided a clear directive for relief: “However, if the petitioner has crossed the age of superannuation then he will be entitled to 75% back wages till his age of superannuation with all consequential benefits from the Respondents-BCCL.”
The writ petition was accordingly allowed.
