RANCHI: The Jharkhand High Court has quashed a nearly two-decade-old Industrial Tribunal award that had directed Tata Iron and Steel Company (TISCO) to reinstate a dismissed workman accused of threatening a senior colliery officer with a revolver.(Employers in Relation to the Management of TISCO v. Dharam Singh,W.P.(L) No. 7272 of 2005 decided on 25.8.26)
Court held that the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad, had exceeded the scope of its jurisdiction by effectively re-appreciating the evidence recorded during a domestic disciplinary inquiry, despite having earlier found the inquiry to be fair and proper.
The High Court consequently set aside the Tribunal’s June 20, 2005 award, which had directed TISCO to reinstate workman Dharam Singh with 25% back wages from the date of his dismissal. The Court upheld the disciplinary action taken against him.
The 1994 workplace incident
The dispute arose from an incident alleged to have occurred during the night of June 18-19, 1994, at the 15 Pit Top of Sijua Colliery. Dharam Singh, who was employed as a Chainman in the Project Section of Bhelatand Colliery, was accused of approaching R.C. Singh, then an Assistant Colliery Manager, while carrying a revolver and threatening to kill him.
TISCO initiated disciplinary proceedings against Singh under Clause 19(5) of its Certified Standing Orders. A domestic inquiry followed.The management relied on the evidence of R.C. Singh, the officer who allegedly received the threat, as well as other witnesses, including N.K. Gupta and Security Officer Ajay Kumar.The inquiry officer ultimately found the charge proved. TISCO thereafter dismissed Singh from service with effect from November 1, 1994.
Workman denied the allegations and maintained that he was not present at the site when the incident allegedly occurred.His defence included an alibi based on illness. He claimed that he had first gone to a feeder hospital and was subsequently taken to a private nursing home.
He challenged his dismissal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 at Dhanbad.
The Tribunal initially found the domestic inquiry to be fair and proper. However, while deciding the substantive dispute, it reassessed the evidence and concluded that the management had failed to establish the misconduct.In its award dated June 20, 2005, the Tribunal set aside the dismissal and directed TISCO to reinstate Singh with 25% back wages from November 1, 1994, along with consequential benefits.
TISCO then approached the Jharkhand High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking quashing of the award.
The High Court disagreed with the Tribunal’s approach by holding that Tribunal could not act as appellate court.
High Court noted that the domestic inquiry had already been held to be fair and proper. In such circumstances, the Tribunal was required to examine the matter within the parameters of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act.The High Court found that the Tribunal had effectively undertaken a fresh assessment of the evidence and substituted its own view for that of the inquiry officer.
The Court held that such an approach was impermissible where the domestic inquiry was fair, and the disciplinary finding was based on evidence capable of supporting the conclusion reached.
The judgment therefore reiterates the limited scope available to an Industrial Tribunal when interfering with the findings of a properly conducted domestic inquiry.The criminal trial standard cannot be applied to a departmental inquiry.
The Tribunal had questioned the management’s case, among other reasons, because there was no FIR, no recovery of the alleged revolver and no criminal prosecution arising from the incident.
The High Court held that the Tribunal could not assess the departmental proceedings by applying the standard applicable to a criminal prosecution.In disciplinary proceedings, misconduct is assessed based on the preponderance of probabilities, rather than the criminal-law requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The High Court found that the Tribunal had failed to properly account for this distinction while reassessing the evidence.The Tribunal had also attached significance to the fact that no FIR was registered in connection with the alleged threat.The High Court, however, treated the disciplinary proceeding and a criminal prosecution as legally distinct processes.
The question before the disciplinary authority was whether the misconduct stood established in the domestic inquiry on the applicable standard of proof. The absence of a criminal case did not, by itself, invalidate the departmental finding.The High Court therefore declined to treat the absence of an FIR or recovery of the alleged weapon as sufficient grounds to overturn the disciplinary conclusion.
The Court also examined whether dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct alleged and found against the workman.Threatening a senior officer with a firearm, if established through a valid disciplinary process, was serious workplace misconduct. The Court found no basis to conclude that dismissal was so excessive or disproportionate as to warrant judicial interference.
The High Court consequently refused to substitute a lesser punishment for the disciplinary penalty imposed by TISCO.
During the pendency of the writ proceedings, Singh reached the age of superannuation and retired on October 29, 2018. The judgment also deals with the issue of payments under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act during the pendency of the proceedings.
The Jharkhand High Court allowed TISCO’s writ petition and quashed the Industrial Tribunal’s June 20, 2005 award.
The judgment is significant for its reiteration that an Industrial Tribunal cannot simply reassess evidence as an appellate forum after holding a domestic inquiry to be fair and proper. It also underscores the distinction between departmental proceedings and criminal trials, particularly with regard to the applicable standard of proof.
