Hrishikesh Roy JUDGMENT
Hrishikesh Roy, J.
1. Leave granted. This appeal has been preferred by the Management against the judgment dated 11.02.2016 in the L.P.A. No. 334/2008 whereby, the Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand had set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and restored the Award dated 28.09.2005 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 Dhanbad whereby, the workmen- Respondents were directed to be reinstated with 50% back wages.
2. We have heard Mr. Anupam Lal Das, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the Management. The Respondent-Union who were espousing the interest of the discharged workmen, is represented by Ms. Anisha Upadhyay, the learned Counsel.
3. The Appellants are the Management of Bhalgora Area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited ('BCCL' for short), a Central Government Undertaking within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. By virtue of their status, the BCCL is required to process their recruitment, by notifying the vacancies and requisitioning names from the jurisdictional Employment Exchange, under the provisions of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 (for short, 'the 1959 Act').
4. In 1986, the BCCL decided to recruit Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates in vacancies of miners/loaders. Accordingly, the Management of BCCL made requisition from the Employment Exchange on the basis whereof, list of eligible SC/ST candidates for appointment was prepared. As a matter of fact, such list did not contain the names of any of the 38 workmen whose case is represented by the Respondent-Trade Union. The allegation is that those 38 job aspirants, in connivance with a Dealing Assistant and a Personnel Manager of the Bhalgora Area of BCCL, dishonestly secured appointments. When such fraudulent appointments was detected, disciplinary proceedings were drawn up against the concerned Dealing Assistant and the Personnel Manager and eventually both were removed from service. Parallely, Charge Memo was issued against the concerned miners/loaders and following the adverse finding in the departmental inquiry, the beneficiaries of the fraudulent appointment process were terminated from service.
5. The case of the 38 workmen was taken up by the Respondent-Trade Union and in the Reference Case No. 98 of 1994, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Tribunal' for short) concluded that the Management failed to substantiate the charge of manipulated appointment as the concerned witness i.e. the dealing clerk Jitendra Kumar Adeshra and the Personnel Manager PM Prasad, were not examined to prove the charge of unmerited appointment being secured by the workmen, in connivance with the said two employees of the Organization. For the perceived failure of the Management to justify their action, the termination orders were interdicted by the Tribunal and the concerned workmen were directed to be reinstated with 50% back wages.
6. Aggrieved by the Tribunal's Award dated 28.09.2005, the Management filed the W.P.(L) No. 1916 of 2006, challenging the finding and the direction of the Tribunal. The learned Single Judge noted that the