JUDGMENT
R.K. Merathia, J.
1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.2.1990 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. I, Dhanbad (respondent No. 1) by which the preliminary issue was decided against the management to the effect that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper and the award dated 14.2.1997 passed by the tribunal in Reference No. 85 of 1988 was against the management and in favour of the workman.
2. Kara Bhuiya, the workman, was charged for abusing and assaulting the Assistant Colliery Manager of the Colliery. He was charge-sheeted. The domestic enquiry was held. He was found guilty. Ultimately he was dismissed from service on 17.8.1985. The tribunal held that the charge-sheet and the enquiry report having not been furnished to the workman, the punishment was bad. It ordered for his reinstatement with 50% full back wages from the date of reinstatement (?).
3. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the award is perverse so far as the finding of non-submission of charge-sheet is concerned. He submitted that there were sufficient materials on record to show that the charge-sheet was served on the workman. Even the workman who was examined as W.W. 1 admitted in his evidence that he was served with a charge-sheet.
4. On this, Mr. Tewari submitted that due to non-submission of the enquiry report, the order of punishment is bad as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. Karunakar . He submitted that even without asking and even if no rules provided for supplying the copy of enquiry report, it should have been served on the workman. He further informed this Court that the workman having died in 1994, his heirs are entitled to 50% of the back wages from the date of dismissal till he reached the age of superannuation, i.e. 1.7.1990.
5. In reply, Mr. Mehta referred to paragraph 8 of the said judgment which reads as under:
8. The need to make the law laid down in Mohd. Ramzan Khan’s case (supra) prospective in operation requires no emphasis. As pointed out above, in view of the unsettled position of the law on the subject, the authorities/managements all over the country had proceeded on the basis that there was no need to furnish a copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer to the delinquent employee, and innumerable employees have been punished without giving them the copies of the reports. In some of the cases, the orders of punishment have long since become final while other cases are pending in Courts at different stages. In many of the cases, the misconduct has been grave and in others the denial on the part of the management to furnish the report would ultimately prove to be no more than a technical mistake. To reopen all the disciplinary proceedings now would result in grave prejudice to administration which will far outweigh the benefit to the employees concerned. Both administrative reality and public interest do not, therefore, require that the orders of punishment passed prior to the decision in Mohd. Ramzan Khan’s case (supra) without furnishing the report of the Inquiry Officer should be disturbed and the disciplinary proceedings which gave rise to the said orders should be reopened on that account. Hence we hold as above….
6. In the circumstances noticed above, I find that the award is perverse so far as the finding of non-submission of charge-sheet is concerned. The workman himself admitted that it was served on him.
7. So far non-submission of enquiry report is concerned, the order of punishment was passed on 17.8.1985 much earlier to the said judgment of Union of India v. Md. Ramzan Khan pronounced on 20.11.1990. In that view of the matter, it cannot be held that for non-supply of enquiry report, the order of punishment can be set aside.
8. In the circumstances, the award dated 14.2.1997 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.