JUDGMENT
Tapen Sen, J.
1. This writ application is directed against the award dated 21.8.1995 passed by the learned Presiding
Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 83 of 1990 whereby and whereunder he held the dismissal of the petitioner as justified and accordingly observed that he would not be entitled to any relief. Consequently the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the aforementioned award which has been made Annexure 4 to the writ application and has also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to reinstate him in service together with all consequential benefits.
2. The petitioner is the concerned workman, namely Sudama Das and upon a complaint lodged by one Keshri Devi, wife of one Sudama Ravi Das (said to have died on 26.1.1973, at Sadar Hospital in Bihar Sarif), he was charged for having impersonated the latter (i.e. Sudama Ravi Das). He was further charged for having entered into service in his place whereafter he got himself transferred to Sendra Bansjora Colliery. On detection, he was stopped from duty by letter dated 20.8.1981 and a first information report was also lodged against him. A dispute was raised giving rise to Reference No. 18 of 1983. By reason of an award dated 30.6.1984 the workman was ordered to be reinstated in service with all full back wages and liberty was given to the management to hold a regular enquiry and take action after such enquiry if it was deemed fit and proper. According to the petitioner, he was reinstated and thereafter a domestic enquiry was initiated and a charge-sheet dated 24.4.1985 was issued for the self-same allegations but this was not served upon him. Even then the management proceeded with the enquiry despite a prayer for an adjournment and also despite a prayer for stay of the enquiry awaiting the result of the criminal case. However, he was dismissed from service.
3. The Management appeared before the learned tribunal and stated that one Sudama Das @ Sudama Ravi Das had been appointed as a miner/loader at the West Moonidih Colliery on 1.1.1973 (i.e., prior to the take over). According to the Management, Sudama Ravi Das expired on 26.1.1973 but this was not known to the Management/the then owner of the Colliery. The mine was taken over on 31.1.1973 and was nationalised with effect from 1.5.1973.
4. The case of the Management was that after the death of Sudama Das @ Sudama Ravi Das, one Banshi Mochi who is actually the concerned workman entered into service and also managed to get a transfer to the Sendra Bansjora Colliery.
5. Keshri Devi, widow of Sudama Ravi Das represented before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad and stated that her husband had died and that another person, namely, Banchi Mochi had obtained employment in place of her husband. The first award passed in Reference Case No. 18 of 1983 was passed holding that the workman was the younger brother of the deceased workman and stopping him from work was illegal and therefore, he was ordered to be reinstated with liberty to the Management that after reinstatement they were free to hold a regular enquiry and take necessary action if they so thought fit and proper.
6. Subsequently, on 24.4.1985 a fresh charge-sheet was issued. A departmental enquiry was held and despite notice of enquiry, the concerned workman refused to participate. Consequentially the enquiry was conducted in his absence and he was found guilty by the Enquiry Officer. The fairness of the departmental enquiry was challenged by the concerned workman and therefore it was taken up as a preliminary issue and by order dated 10.4.1995 the tribunal held the same to be fair and proper.
7. The learned tribunal while passing the impugned award has taken into consideration various evidences and the ones which really clinch the issue are the evidence of Keshri Devi and also the different certificates taken into consideration at paragraph 30 of the award. In paragraph 30, the tribunal has taken into consideration Exhibit 6 which was the certificate granted by the Sarpanch of the Gram Kutchery certifying the death of the husband of Keshri Devi and also stating that Banchi Mochi, son of Faudi Mochi was the devar of Keshri Devi. Similarly, Exhibit 10 was the certificate of Mukhiya/Sarpanch which had a photograph pasted on it and suffixed with the stamp of the Mukhiya certifying that Banshi Mochi, son of Faudi Mochi was well known to them. The said
certificate also certified that the photo pasted thereon was that of Banshi Mochi. Even in the course of arguments, as has been recorded by the learned tribunal at paragraph 30 infra that it was not denied that the said photograph was not of the concerned workman. In that view of the matter, the learned tribunal, therefore, correctly came to the conclusion that it was Sudama Das/Sudama Ravi Das, son of Faudi Ravi Das who was in service of the Company and who had expired on 26.1.1973 and that the concerned workman working in the name of Sudama Ravi Das was actually one Banshi Ravidas/Mochi. What is more important is that at paragraph 32 infra the learned tribunal also recorded that during the course of argument the face of the concerned workman who was also present in the Court and was identified on the request of the learned tribunal as the concerned workman by his learned counsel tallied with the photograph of the certificate of the Mukhiya and the Sarpanch referred to above, i.e. Exhibits 6 and 10.
8. On the face of such overwhelming evidences, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality with the award. Moreover, this Court would not substitute itself and give its own award contrary to the findings recorded by a fact finding authority created under the Industrial Disputes Act.
9. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds that there is no merit in the writ application. It is accordingly dismissed.