Madhya Pradesh High Court
Western Coalfields Limited vs Shri Prayag Modi on 12 August, 2025
1
WP No.36508 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
WRIT PETITION No. 36508 of 2024
WESTERN COAL FIELDS LIMITED
Versus
SHRI PRAYAG MODI
.........................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Anoop Nair - Sr. Advocate with Ms. Akashmi Trivedi - Advocate for the
petitioner.
Shri Akshat Shukla - Advocate for respondent No.1
..........................................................................................................
ORDER
(Reserved on 05.08.2025)
(Pronounced on 12.08.2025)
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/Management
being aggrieved by the award dated 01.02.2024 passed by the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in case No.
CGIT/LC/R/07/2017.
2. It was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner-Western Coal
Fields Ltd. that the Industrial Tribunal has erroneously interfered in the
order of dismissal from service handed out to the respondent-workman by
the petitioner. It is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the respondent was appointed in the year 1974 and he was working on
the post of Head Clerk. His job was checking and passing all types of bills
like LLTC/ LTC/TA bills. In course of such duties he signed the LLTC bill
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 8/13/2025
11:05:04 AM
2
WP No.36508 of 2024
of one workman Ishunu which was erroneous and the bill was processed
without Ishunu being entitled to get the said payment. He had already got
the payment of LLTC in the block period from 1998-2001 for which he was
entitled and the payment in question was additional payment which clearly
amounted to a willful act on the part of the petitioner and therefore, he was
charge-sheeted vide charge-sheet dated 03.01.2001 levelling the allegation
that he did not properly scrutinize the LLTC bill leading to financial loss to
the company. It is vehemently argued that after a domestic enquiry the
enquiry officer has given a finding of guilt against the respondent which is
available at page 235 of the record of the Tribunal. It is contended that the
Tribunal ought not to have interfered in the matter looking to the limited
jurisdiction available with the Tribunal when the Tribunal did not find
enquiry proceedings to be vitiated by any legal or technical defect.
3. The Tribunal has erroneously interfered in the quantum of penalty
which the Tribunal should not have done and converted the punishment of
dismissal to that of reduction in one rank for the misconduct. It is
contended that there was clear cut finding of fact recorded by the enquiry
officer in the domestic enquiry and the Tribunal has overreached its
jurisdiction in interfering in the quantum of penalty when the misconduct
has been found to be proved by Tribunal also. Therefore, it is argued that
once the respondent was part of transaction to cause financial loss to the
company and the Tribunal not having found the charge as not established
on facts but on the contrary, held the charge to be established on facts, then
there was no occasion for the Tribunal to have interfered in the quantum of
penalty.
4. Per contra, it is argued by learned counsel for the respondent –
workman that only this much has been upheld by the Tribunal that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 8/13/2025
11:05:04 AM
3
WP No.36508 of 2024
respondent was one of the links in the chain while passing the said
erroneous bill. The Tribunal has drawn distinction between a wilful act and
bonafide negligence. The Tribunal did not find the act of the respondent-
workman to be a wilful act but has only found it to be an act of error or
negligence for which the Tribunal found the punishment of dismissal to be
shockingly disproportionate and therefore, interfered in the quantum. It is
argued that such a course is open for the Tribunal to adopt as per Section
11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, it is argued that the
Tribunal has not committed any error nor overreached its jurisdiction in
interfering with the quantum of punishment and it is prayed that the award
of the Tribunal may be confirmed.
5. Heard.
6. In the present case, the respondent-workman was charge sheeted
with the following charges:-
** ges vkids fo:/k f’kdk;r izkIr gqbZ gS fd vkids }kjk Jh bZ’uw oYn
fVdMw gkyst [kyklh Vks-ua- 548 dh ,y-,y-Vh-lh QkeZ dks pSd fd;k x;k
,oa lacaf/kr dkexkj Jh bZ’uw dks ,d gh Cykd o”kZ ¼98&2001 ½esa nks ckj
,y-,y-Vh-lh- ,oa ,d ckj ,y-Vh-lh dk Hkqxrku gks x;k ;fn vkius
lw{erk ls tkWp dh gksrh rks Jh bZ’uw dk mDr Hkqxrku tks fd;k x;k og
ugha gks ikrkA vkids }kjk lgh ijh{k.k u djus ij daiuh dks vkfFkZd {kfr
igqaphA**mijksDr rFkk dfFkr vkjksi tks fd uanu lewg dUgku ,fj;k osdkSyh] uanu
ek-u-2 ij ykxw vkpkj lafgrk ¼LVs- vkMZj½ dh /kkjk 26 dk fuEufyf[kr
mya?ku ik;k tkrk gS%&26-1 fu;ksDrk ds O;kikj ;k laifRr ds lkFk pksjh /kks[kk/kM+h ;k csbZekuhA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 8/13/2025
11:05:04 AM
4WP No.36508 of 2024
26-22 tkucw>dj fd;k x;k ,slk dk;Z ftlls vuq’kklu Hkax gksuk gks ;k
ftlls dEiuh ds fgrksa dks gkfu gksrh gksA”
7. The allegations against the respondent in the said charge-sheet was
that he checked LLTC form of Ishunu (another workman) and though the
said workman had already drawn the LLTC benefits to which he was
entitled in the block period, but as the respondent failed to minutely
scrutinize the form, therefore he did not detect that the payment was
already made to the said workman which led to double payment and
consequential financial loss to the company. The respondent was charged
with Clause 26.1 and 26.22 of the certified standing orders which relate to
theft or fraud or dishonesty in relation to property or business of the
employer or any willful act which breaches discipline or which adversely
affects the interests of the company.
8. During the course of enquiry, the said workman Ishunu appeared and
gave statement against the petitioner and he gave statements beyond the
terms of the charge sheet and stated that it was the petitioner who had
instigated him to lodge false claim of LLTC because he was in need of
money and further stated that the respondent -workman asked for a bribe
of Rs.3000/- to get the false claim passed and he paid an amount of
Rs.2000/- to the respondent. This issue was vehemently raised by learned
counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-workman has indulged in
accepting bribe for getting false payment passed and therefore, it is a grave
act of fraud and dishonesty with business and financial interest of the
employer and therefore, it was a clear case of dismissal from service as
major misconduct had been proved.
9. Upon perusal of enquiry report, it is seen by this Court that the
enquiry officer has concluded as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 8/13/2025
11:05:04 AM
5
WP No.36508 of 2024
“Shri Modi has signed the payment of LLTC and it could
have been pointed out by him by checking the old/new LLTC
register which he did not point-out which proves that he has
managed this wrong payment. Moreover, at one place Shri
Modi has stated that he has detected several errors of LLTC
payment and stopped wrong payment and at other place he
has stated that it was not possible to detect the error. In the
case of double payment of LLTC to Shri Ishnoo which
proves his involvement in above wrong payment.”
10. From perusal of the said finding of the enquiry officer, it is clear that
enquiry officer though has found the charges to be proved but has given the
finding that the respondent has signed the payment of LLTC bill and failed
to point out that the concerned workman has already taken the amount to
which he was entitled in the block period and he failed to check the old and
new LLTC register. It has been pointed out by the enquiry officer that in
various cases the respondent had been checking and detecting errors of
LLTC payment but in the present case of workman Ishunu he did not check
and detect the erroneous payment which proves his involvement in the
wrong payment.
11. It is clear from the aforesaid enquiry finding that the enquiry officer
was also not impressed with statements of workman Ishunu that he had
taken wrongful payment and given bribe to the respondent. It is also not in
dispute that workman Ishunu has been proceeded against by the
management and has been subjected to separate disciplinary proceedings in
the same matter and therefore, his statement cannot be taken at face value
to hold that the petitioner had accepted bribe from the said workman. Even
otherwise, neither there was any charge, nor the enquiry officer find it
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 8/13/2025
11:05:04 AM
6
WP No.36508 of 2024
proved that the respondent had accepted illegal gratification from Ishunu to
get his false claim processed for LLTC payment.
12. The Tribunal has considered the position that the respondent was
entrusted with the task of checking claims of workmen including workman
Ishunu regarding the LLTC claims and approved it thereafter for payment.
It is undisputed that erroneous payment was made to workman Ishunu. The
Tribunal held that acceptance of bribe is a separate misconduct as provided
in the certified standing order vide Clause 26.2 and there was no charge
under Clause 26.2 against the respondent and therefore, the enquiry officer
also did not find it proved that the respondent had accepted bribe for
processing the erroneous payment to Ishunu. Therefore, the Tribunal has
upheld the findings of the enquiry officer that if the respondent had acted
with due diligence, then double payment could have been prevented and
the Tribunal has found that the willful negligence proved against the
respondent being recorded on the basis of evidence collected during
enquiry. In M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 88 it has been
held as under :-
“25. It is true that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial
review is limited. Disciplinary proceedings, however, being
quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to
prove the charge. Although the charges in a departmental
proceeding are not required to be proved like a criminal
trial i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight
of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial
function, who upon analysing the documents must arrive at
a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of
probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on
record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration
any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the
relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He
cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on
the basis of surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquireSignature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 8/13/2025
11:05:04 AM
7WP No.36508 of 2024
into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had
not been charged with.”
(Emphasis supplied)
13. However, so far as charge in respect to Clause 26.22 of the certified
standing order is concerned relating to committing theft, fraud or
dishonesty with company’s business or property, the Tribunal has held that
there is evidence during the enquiry that the respondent was only passing
authority and the claim was to be primarily examined and processed by
others and secondly, it was the respondent-workman himself who later on
reported this wrong payment to management after detecting it, though after
actual payment.
14. In view of the above, the Tribunal held that only the charge of willful
negligence has been proved and the charge of theft or dishonesty does not
stand proved.
15. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid logic and
reasoning adopted by the Tribunal cannot be found faulted with because
looking to the overall evidence on record which has been marshalled in
detail by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has held that the charge of theft and
dishonesty does not stand proved and therefore, it was not a proper case to
award punishment of dismissal.
16. So far as interference in quantum of penalty is concerned, the Labour
Courts /Tribunals are vested with extraordinary powers as per Section 11-A
of Industrial Disputes Act which reads as under:-
“11A. Powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National
Tribunals to give appropriate relief in in case of discharge or
dismissal of workmen.– Where an industrial dispute relating to
the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a
Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudicationSignature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 8/13/2025
11:05:04 AM
8WP No.36508 of 2024
and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour
Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is
satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not
justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or
dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms
and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to
the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in
lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case
may require:
Provided that in any proceeding under this section the Labour
Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall
rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh
evidence in relation to the matter.]”
17. The jurisdiction exercised by the Labour Courts and Tribunals in
case of discharge or dismissal of workman to give appropriate relief is
infact, a wide jurisdiction inasmuch as the Labour Courts in exercise of
Section 11-A can look into the proportionality of the punishment by
supervising the order of Disciplinary Authority to see whether it is
proportionate, as against interference only upon finding the punishment to
be “shockingly disproportionate”. The jurisdiction of the Labour Court is
maintenance of industrial peace and harmony and therefore, the Labour
Court has been given specific tool by Section 11-A to adjudicate
proportionality of punishment in all cases referred to the said
Court/Tribunal under the Act of 1947. In Mavji C. Lakum v. Central Bank
of India, (2008) 12 SCC 726, it was held as under :-
25. Though the learned Judge had discussed all the
principles regarding the exercise of powers under Section 11-A
of the Industrial Disputes Act as also the doctrine of
proportionality and the Wednesbury principles, we are afraid the
learned Judge has not applied all these principles properly to the
present case. The learned Judge has quoted extensively from the
celebrated decision of Workmen v. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co.
of India (P) Ltd. [(1973) 1 SCC 813 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 341 :
AIR 1973 SC 1227] , however, the learned Judge seems to have
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 8/13/2025
11:05:04 AM
9WP No.36508 of 2024
ignored the observations made in AIR para 32 of that decision
where it is observed that: (SCC p. 830, para 36)
“36. … The words ‘in the course of the adjudication
proceeding, the Tribunal is satisfied that the order of
discharge or dismissal was not justified’ clearly indicate
that the Tribunal is now clothed with the power to
reappraise the evidence in the domestic enquiry and satisfy
itself whether the said evidence relied on by an employer
establishes the misconduct alleged against a workman.
What was originally a plausible conclusion that could be
drawn by an employer from the evidence, has now given
place to a satisfaction being arrived at by the Tribunal that
the finding of misconduct is correct. … The Tribunal is now
at liberty to consider not only whether the finding of
misconduct recorded by an employer is correct; but also to
differ from the said finding if a proper case is made out.”
In the case of Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and
Industry v. Workman, (1972) 1 SCC 40, it was held as under :-
“34. Now coming to the merits of the case we find little
substance in the contention of the Federation that the respondent
had issued legal notices to the International Chamber of
Commerce with a view to bring discredit to the Federation — its
employer. The charge of misconduct that was framed against the
respondent was that he having acted in a manner inconsistent
with his duties and obligation as an employee of the Federation
he caused to be addressed without any justification copies of the
letters to the International Chamber of Commerce with a view to
bring and/or capable of bringing disrepute to the Federation in
the eyes of the International Chamber of Commerce. The
Enquiry Officer in the domestic enquiry held that having regard
to the emphatic assertion of the respondent that he had no
intention to bring disrepute to the Federation in any way and
that he was only trying to get his legitimate dues “it is not
necessary to analyse the exact intention, but the effect has been
to convey to the International Chamber of Commerce a low
impression about the Federation and thereby to bring down the
prestige of the Federation in the eyes of the International
Chamber of Commerce”. In spite of this finding the Enquiry
Officer found that the respondent’s action was clearly subversive
of discipline and in his opinion deserved to be so treated. The
Tribunal as we have noticed earlier found that this did not
amount to misconduct which finding in our view is justified on
the evidence. It appears from the statement of G.C. Das,Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 8/13/2025
11:05:04 AM
10WP No.36508 of 2024
Accountant of the Federation that it was the President of the
Indian National Committee who was incharge of organising the
ICC Congress and that all payments were made from the special
account of “20th Congress of the ICC, FICCI” It is, therefore,
clear that it is not the Federation that conducted the Congress
but another organisation which was brought into being for that
purpose. It is this Committee namely the Indian National
Committee which employed the respondent and in the
circumstances there is little justification for taking umbrage
when the respondent in spite of his demand to settle his claim
was not given satisfaction if he issued a notice to all the three
organisations namely the Federation, the Indian National
Committee and the International Chamber of Commerce and
Industry. At any rate the fact that the respondent did not intend
to cast any aspersion against the Federation became also
evident from the manner in which he tendered his apology and
said that he never had any such intention. Notwithstanding this
apology the punishment of discharge for a workman who has
served the Federation for 12 years without any cause for
complaint and had worked for 40 days receiving overtime
payment for only seven days was far in excess of what he
deserved — even if he was considered to be guilty of any
misconduct. It is not denied that there are no standing orders
specifying the misconduct which would justify dismissal and
what misconduct would justify other disciplinary action. In these
circumstances it is open to the Tribunal to go into the question
whether the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct
complained of as to amount to victimisation. In W. M.
Agnani v. Badri Dass [(1963) 1 LLJ 684] it was so held by this
Court. It was also held in Hind Construction and Engineering
Co. Ltd. v. Workmen [(1965) 2 SCR 85 : AIR 1965 SC 917] that
although it is a settled rule that the award of punishment for
misconduct is a matter for the management to decide and if there
is justification for punishment imposed, the Tribunal should not
interfere; but where the punishment is so disproportionate that
no reasonable employer would ever have imposed it in like
circumstance, the Tribunal may treat the imposition of such
punishment as itself showing victimisation or unfair labour
practice. In view of the fact that the domestic Tribunal acted on
no evidence at all because it was found that the intention with
which the respondent had issued the notices to the International
Chamber of Commerce and Industry could not be ascertained,
the Tribunal was justified in allowing evidence to be led and on
that evidence to come to the conclusion that the termination of
service was wrong. We cannot help feeling that the FederationSignature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 8/13/2025
11:05:04 AM
11WP No.36508 of 2024
had made a mountain out of a mole hill and made a trivial
matter into one involving loss of its prestige and reputation. In
this view the appeal is dismissed with costs.”
18. The Tribunal has noted the settled proposition that punishments
awarded with respect of misconduct committed by employee are in the
domain of the disciplinary authority but in the particular case held that the
discretion should have been exercised by the employer in judicious manner.
19. The Tribunal has not only held that the punishment is shockingly
disproportionate but also disproportionate to the charge proved against the
respondent and held the punishment to be bad in law. The Tribunal held
that the negligence exhibited by the respondent did not extend to the act of
moral turpitude because no dishonest intention was involved in it. The
Tribunal considered the position that it was workman himself who detected
this wrong payment and first reported it to the management and the past
service record of the applicant was also good and there was nothing on
record for the employer to have awarded maximum possible punishment to
the respondent-workman.
20. It is also relevant to mention here that in the matter of payment of
gratuity to the same respondent-workman the matter has travelled to this
Court in WP No.20795/2016 and the para-14 of the order passed in
aforesaid case, this Court has categorically held that the allegations against
the respondent-workman do not amount to moral turpitude. The Coordinate
Bench has held as under:-
“14. Although the employer has mentioned Clause 26.1 and
26.22 of the Standing Orders in the Charge-sheet, the only
allegation made and found proved against the workman was
relating to negligence. The allegation was regarding issuance of
LIC twice in a block year. There was no allegation against the
petitioner relating to moral turpitude. Putting it differently, itSignature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 8/13/2025
11:05:04 AM
12WP No.36508 of 2024
was not the charge against the petitioner that he has committed
aforesaid act with any oblique motive or gained anything out of
it. Thus, Clause (ii) of Sub-section 6 of Section 4 is clearly
inapplicable. Similarly, Clause (i) of the said provision is not
applicable because there is no allegation against the workman
relating to “riotous” or “disorderly” conduct. No allegations
relating to violence on his part were also alleged in the Charge-
sheet. So far Clause (a) is concerned, it may be pressed into
service. This clause deals with negligence and enables the
employer to forfeit the gratuity “to the extent of damage or loss
so caused.” In the instant case, the petitioner has not undertaken
any exercise to determine the quantum of loss caused. Indeed, it
was pointed out by the other side that full gratuity has been
released in favour of Shri Ishnu, who had been allegedly and
illegally enriched by giving two LTCs in one block year whereas
he was entitled for only one LTC. Admittedly, no opportunity was
given to the workman before forfeiture of the gratuity.”
21. In view of the above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the
Tribunal has rightly interfered in the quantum of penalty as ingredients of
moral turpitude against the respondent-workman have not been found
proved by this Court also and the Tribunal does not seem to have erred in
passing the impugned award and interfered in the quantum of penalty.
Consequently, no grounds are made out to interfere in the impugned award.
The petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The respondent-workman is at
liberty to get the award enforced.
(VIVEK JAIN)
nks JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 8/13/2025
11:05:04 AM
[ad_1]
Source link