1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

BEFORE:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)

WPA 9805 of 2025

Eastern Coalfields Limited

Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

For the Petitioner :Mr. Manik Das, Adv.

For the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 :Mr. Raj Kumar Gaurisaria, Adv.

Ms. Sabita Roy, Adv.

For the Respondent No.5 : Mr. Nirmalendu Ganguly, Adv.

Mr. A. Chakraborty, Adv.

Judgment reserved on : 03.09.2026

Judgment delivered on : 12.10.2026

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.:-

1. The writ application has been preferred challenging an award dated 24

th

November, 2023 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court, Asansol in reference Case no. 15 of 1998.

2. Vide the impugned award the learned Tribunal observed as follows:-

“From the aforesaid facts and circumstances I hold that

amidst non-availability of several important missing links and

material relating to appointment of Gouri Nath Banerjee at

Ajoy-II Colliery under Sripur Area, the transfer order, LPC, and

release order by which he joined at Nakrakonda Colliery

under Bankola Area, the only sustainable evidence which

súrfaced in favour of the charged employee is his CMPF

Account Ledger bearing his CMPF account number, issued on

2

the basis of the Allotment Register of Ajoy-II Colliery (Exhibit

M-5) Weighing the evidence on record, the balance tilts in

favour of the workman who has admittedly served the

company for ten years at Nakrakonda Colliery, where he was

granted two promotions and also has a CMPF account. The

evidence adduced on behalf of the management could not

dislodge the material in support of the workman. The denial

of the management simpliciter that the workman never

worker at Ajoy -II Colliery does not help them to

establish the charge. Accordingly, I hold that the charge

levelled against the workman in Charge Sheet dated

01.10.1994 could not be established against him. The Enquiry

Report and Second Show Cause Notice were not served upon

the workman in compliance with the principle laid down in the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

Union of India and Others vs Mohd. Ramzan Khan [AIR

(1991) SC 471] and the Circular of Coal India Ltd. bearing No

CIL C-5A(VI)/50774/28 dated 12.05 1994. The order of

dismissal dated 23.01.1996 (Exhibit W-33) passed by the

Chief General Manager of Bankola Area against Gouri Nath

Banerjee is not sustainable under the law and the same is set

aside.”

And the tribunal finally decided as follows:-

“The workman having superannuated from service during

pendency of the Reference case, it is found appropriate to

direct the management of Nakrakonda Colliery of ECL that

Gouri Nath Banerjee be treated to be in service from the date

of his dismissal i.e. 23.01.1996. He shall be entitled to his

back wages along with consequential benefits. The

management of the company shall disburse his dues within

six (6) months from the date of Notification.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the Industrial Dispute is decided in favo ur of the

workman against the management on contest. The dismissal

of Gouri Nath Banerjee from his service by order dated 23.01

3

1996 is set aside He shall be treated to be in service w.e.f. the

date of his dismissal till the date of his normal

superannuation. He shall be entitled to his back wages for the

said period along with consequential benefits. The

management of the company shall disburse his dues within

sıx (6) months from the date of Notification. Let copies of the

Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour,

Government of India, New Delhi fo r information and

Notification.”

3. The petitioner’s case is that the respondent No. 5 joined Nakrakonda

Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as the

"ECL") on 02-03-1984 as Fitter Helper on misrepresentation that he was

transferred from Ajoy - II Colliery - At that time, Nakrakonda Colliery was

under Jhanjra Area (presently Bankola Area) while Ajoy - II Colliery was

under Sripur Area (presently under Satgram-Sripur Area. At the time of

joining at the Nakrakonda Colliery, the respondent No. 5 used false and

fabricated documents like LPC (Last Pay Certificate), Transfer order dt.

17-02-1984 (not produced), etc. Necessary information was sought from

the management of the Ajoy II Colliery which revealed that the

respondent No. 5 never worked at the Ajoy -II Colliery, Charge-Sheet

dated 15-07-1994 was issued. The same was challenged before the

Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and was set aside with liberty to the

petitioner to issue fresh Charge-Sheet. Fresh Charge-Sheet dated 01-10-

1994 was issued for Misconduct under Clauses 17 (i) (a), (o) & (u) of the

Model Standing Orders. Reply to the Charge -Sheet was given by the

respondent No. 5 on 04-10-1994. Headquarter of ECL by letter dated 08-

02-1995 informed the Jhanjra Area that no letter of transfer dated 17-

4

02-1984 was ever issued. Enquiry Proceedings were conducted and

concluded and Enquiry Report dated 13-12-1995 was submitted wherein

the charges against the respondent No. 5 were found proved. Respondent

No. 5 was dismissed from service vide letter dated 23-01-1996.

4. Respondent No. 5 filed a writ petition challenging dismissal but the same

was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy Appeal filed was also

dismissed. Industrial dispute was raised. Reference made on

12/06/1998. Award passed by the CGIT, Asansol, on 10 -03-2010-

Challenged by ECL in WP 15750 (W) of 2010 - Such writ petition was

dismissed on 27-08-2018. Appeal being MAT 1375 of 2018 was filed .

Appeal was allowed and the Award was set aside and the matter was

remanded back to the CGIT by order dated 30-03-2022. CGIT passed

the Impugned Award dated 24-11-2023.

5. The petitioner’s grounds for setting aside of the impugned award is as

follows:-

i) FRAUD committed by the respondent No. 5 in securing employment

at the Nakrakonda Colliery of ECL. The LPC (Last Pay Certificate) as

submitted by the respondent No. 5 at the time of joining the

Nakrakonda Colliery shows a different CMPF A/c No. than that of

the one stated by the CMPFO in the letter dated 03-12-2018. There

cannot be two CMPF A/c Nos for one workman as CMPF A/c No. is

allotted only once, when a person is employed in a coal company and

5

the same remains unaltered until his cessation of work with the

company.

ii) CGIT failed to consider that the CMPF A/c No. mentioned in the LPC

is not of the respondent No. 5 but was of one Jayshree Ahir as

confirmed by the letter dated 04/05-07-1994. It is thus apparent

that the CMPF A/c was opened only after the respondent No. 5

joined the Nakrakonda Colliery in 1984 and not prior to that though

the respondent No. 5 alleges that he was appointed on 22-03-1982

at the Ajoy-II Colliery. It is not possible for a new appointee to work

for two years without CMPF A/c No., as the Exhibit W-28 (CMPF

Pass Book) and Exhibit M-4 (letter dated 03-12-2018 of the CMPFO)

do not prove that the respondent No. 5 was working since the first

quarter of 1982 (his alleged date of appointment being 22-03-1982)

Paragraphs 2 (k), 25A, 37 (d), 38 & 39 of the CMPF Scheme 1948 are

relied upon.

iii) CGIT failed to consider the difference in the name of the father of

the workman as recorded in the CMPFO's letter dated 03-12-2018

corroborated by the CMPF Passbook and one stated by the

respondent No. 5 and is not an illiterate person and cannot be said

to have made any bonafide mistake as to the name of his father.

iv) CGIT also did not consider the letter dated 08-02-1995 wherein the

Headquarter of the petitioner confirmed that no order of transfer

dated 17-02-1984 was issued. It is apparent from paragraph 18 of

6

the Award that the respondent No. 5 failed to produce his

appointment letter and acted surreptitiously by lodging a GD dated

27-07-1994 as to loss of all documents relating to his

employment to cover his misdeeds . There was no reason why the

respondent No. 5 was carrying all such documents with him when

the Charge-Sheet dated 15-07-1994 was issued but enquir y

proceedings were not started. If the respondent No. 5 had lost the

service records how could he produce before the CGIT the

documents like LPC, transfer order, etc. pertaining to Ajoy - II

Colliery?

6. The petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:-

i) Addagada Raghavamma & Another -versus- Addagada

Chemchemma & Another reported in A 1964 SC 136

Paragraphs 9 to 12 (Page 8 at 13 and 14 of this written

notes).

ii) Anil Rishi -versus- Gurbaksh Singh reported in (2006) 4

Supreme 62 Paragraphs 12, 19 and 20 ( Page 35 at 38 and

39 of this written notes).

iii) A. V. Papayya Sastry & Others -versus- Govt. of A.P. & Others

reported in (2007) 4 SCC 221-Paragraphs 21 to 30 (Page 40

at 50 and 51 of this written notes).

7

iv) Commissioner of Customs -versus- Aafloat Textiles India

Private Limited and Others reported in (2009) 11 SCC 62,

Paragraph 12 (page 58 at 62 of this written notes).

v) Meghmala and Others -versus- G. Narasimha Reddy and

Others reported in (2010) 8 SC 383 - Paragraphs 28, 34 and

36 [Page 68 at 79, 80 and 81 of this written notes].

vi) State of Uttar Pradesh and Others -versus- Ravindra Kumar

Sharma and Others repo rted in (2016) 4 SCC 791 -

Paragraphs 7, 8, 10 and 11 [Page 86 at 88, 89 and 91 of

this written notes].

7. The private respondent being the respondent no.5 herein has stated that

the Learned CGIT, after a full-fledged trial, by the said Award dated

24.11.2023, decided the Industrial dispute in favour of the workman

(respondent no. 5 herein) and set aside the order dated 23.01.1996 by

which the respondent no. 5 was dismissed from his service. The Learned

CGIT, further directed that the respondent no. 5 shall be treated to be in

service w.e.f. the date of his dismissal till the date of his superannuation

and he shall be entitled to his back wages for the said period along with

consequential benefits. The management of the company, has been

directed to, disburse his dues within six months from the date of

Notification.

8. It is further case of the respondent no.5 the written complaint alleged to

have been received by the petitioner company against respondent no. 5

8

were neither served upon respondent no. 5 nor adduced as evidence

either before the Enquiry Officer or before the Learned CGIT.

9. The charge-sheet dated 15.07.1994, on the basis of which the enquiry

proceedings was initiated is itself vague and bad in law and should not

have been taken cognizance of, as it was not accompanied by any

statement of allegations or list of witnesses and, moreover, it failed to

specifically disclose the documents alleged to have been fabricated by the

workman/respondent no. 5. The enquiry proceedings initiated on the

basis of such a vague chargesheet stands vitiated, as having been

conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and is liable to

be quashed and set aside. [Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P. Education

Society and Ors. reported in (2013) 6 SCC 515 para 16, 17 ].

10. That at the time of transfer of any workman from one office to another

office of employer's establishment, an order of transfer, Last Pay

Certificate (L.P.C) and an order of release are issued and the same are

communicated to the place of transfer officially and the transferred

workman has nothing to do with the same. In this case, it was the

persisted stand of the workman/respondent no. 5 from the very

inception and has been specifically pleaded in his written statement

before the CGIT that he has not carried an d produced the order of

transfer, Last Pay Certificate (L.P.C) and an order of release but the said

papers reached to the management of Bankola Area, Nakrakonda Colliery

before his joining and the same has not been specifically denied by the

9

management/petitioner which itself proves the contention made by the

workman is true and correct.

11. That at the time of joining of the workman/respondent no. 5 at the

transferee colliery all the relevant papers and documents were verified by

the higher officials of the management/petitioner but the officials who

checked and verified the documents had not been produced as a witness

by the management either before the Enquiry Officer or before the

Tribunal. However, the witness produced before the Enquiry Officer or

before the Tribunal do not have any personal knowledge of the incident.

12. Admittedly, during the tenure of the workman at the Nakrakonda

Colliery (after being transferred from Ajoy-II Colliery) starting from

02.03.1984 till his order of suspension on 01.10.1994, the workman

was promoted from the post of Fitter Helper to the post of Fitter in

Category-IV by order dated 07/09.03.1989 (Exhibit W-26) and thereafter

again after five years he had been promoted to the post of Fitter in

Category-V by order dated 16/24.01.1994 (Exhibit W-27). At time of

promotion, all records relating to service of workman had been duly

verified by the officials of the management. But officials who were

connected in giving promotion of the workman has not been produced as

a witness either before Enquiry Officer or before the Tribunal which is

fatal to employer's case that entry of the workman in the service is illegal

or based on fabricated documents and adverse inference is liable to be

drawn against the petitioner company.

10

13. A bare glance at the enquiry report annexed with the writ petition itself

shows that respondent no. 5, the delinquent workman, was not afforded

any opportunity to defend himself, and moreover, the entire burden of

proof had been improperly placed upon him. Therefore, the en quiry

report and the second show cause notice ought to have been served upon

respondent no. 5 prior to awarding the highest punishment. The failure

to afford such an opportunity has caused grave prejudice to respondent

no. 5. The action of the management i s against the principles

pronounced by the Supreme Court of India in [Union of India and

Others Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan repor ted in (1991) 1 SCC 588 para

15].

14. The Union of India has filed the written notes along with supplementary

notes and has supported the impugned award passed in the present

case. The specific contention of Union of India herein is that the Award

was published in the Official Gazette of Govt. of India and that 30 days

from 29.01.2024 expired on 28.02.2024 and the said Award got the force

of the law and become enforceable as envisaged u/sec. 17A and became

final and binding on the parties to the dispute as well. Sec. 17(2)

specifically lays down that the said award, then shall not be called in

question by any Court in any manner whatsoever.

15. Section 17A, 17(2) and Section 18 are reproduced herein below for

reference:-

“Sec 17A- Commencement of the Award .- (1) An Award

(including an arbitration award) shall become enforceable on

11

the expiry of thirty days from the date of its publication under

section 17…………….

Sec.17(2) Subject to the provisions of section 17A, the

award published under sub -section(1) shall be final and

shall not be called in question by any court in any

manner whatsoever.

Section 18. Persons on whom settlements and awards

are binding.-[(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between

the employer and workman otherwise than in the course of

conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the

agreement.

(2)[Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), an arbitration

award] which has become enforceable shall be binding on the

parties to the agreement who referred the dispute to

arbitration.]

(3) A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation

proceedings under this Act [or an arbitration award in a case

where a notification has been issued under sub-section (3-A) of

section 10-A] or [an award [of a Labour Court, Tribunal or

National Tribunal] which has become enforceable] shall be

binding on-

(a)all parties to the industrial dispute;

(b)all other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings

as parties to the dispute, unless the Board, [arbitrator,] [Labour

Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] as the case may be,

records the opinion that they were so summoned without proper

cause;

(c)where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is an

employer, his heirs, successors or assigns in respect of the

establishment to which the dispute relates;

(d)where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is

composed of workmen, all persons who were employed in the

establishment or part of the establishment, as the case may be,

to which the dispute relates on the date of the dispute and all

persons who subsequently become employed in that

establishment or part.”

16. It is further submitted that non-implementation of the Award after

becoming final and binding on the parties attracts penal clauses as

12

under Section 29 read with section 32 of the I.D. Act, 1947. The said Sec.

29 and section 32 speaks as under:-

“Sec. 29. Penalty for breach of settlement or award - Any

person who commits a breach of any term of any settlement or

award, which is binding on him under this Act, shall be

punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to

six months, or with fine, or with both, and where the breach is

a continuing one, with a further fine which may extend to two

hundred rupees for every day during which the breach

continues after the conviction for the first and the Court trying

the offence, if it fines the offender, may direct that the whole or

any part of the fine collected from him shall be paid by way of

compensation, to any person who in its opinion has been

injured by such breach.

Sec. 32 Offence by companies etc. When a person

committing an offence under this Act is a company or other

body corporate or an association of persons (whether

incorporated or not), every director, manager, secretary, agent

or other officer or person concerned with the management

thereof shall unless he proves that the offence was committed

without his knowledge or consent, be deemed to be guilty of

such offence.”

The present Writ Petition WPA 9805 of 2025 has been filed after a long

delay of more than 1 ½ years. No plausible explanation has been stated

for such delay by the petitioner company.

17. Hence the Union of India submits that writ petition is thus not

maintainable. In support of the allegation of fraud against the private

respondent/workmen submits that the stand of the petitioner cannot be

accepted considering that the Petitioner company allowed Respondent

No. 5 to serve continuously for over 10 years (from March 1984 to July

1994) without any internal audit or verification objection. During this

13

tenure, the workman was twice granted promotions (to Category -IV in

1989 and Category-V in 1994) after thorough verification of service

records by management officials. Independent records from the Coal

Mines Provident Fund Office (Exhibits M -4 and M-5) confirm the

workman's date of appointment as 22.03.1982 at Ajoy-II Colliery. Minor

discrepancies in CMPF account numbering or administrative details

generated by external authorities cannot be attributed as fraud on the

part of the workman, although it reveals from the Award that there is no

discrepancies in CMPF record.

18. From the materials on record including the impugned award, it

appears that the sole document which formed the b asis of the award

was the employee’s CMPF amount and the allotment register of Ajoy

II colliery, which shows the name of the employee, on the basis of

which CMPF account number was allotted on the basis of the said

Register forwarded to the Regional Commis sioner – I(SG), CMPF,

Region- I.

19. The tribunal’s following observation is relevant:-

“………..documents filed by the management

(Exhibit M-4 and M-5) would reveal that the office of

the Regional Commissioner - I (SG), CMPF in their

letter dated 03.12.2018 informed the General

Manager, Bankola Area that as per report received

from custodian official and the Allotment Register

of Ajoy-II Colliery (BKR/4), Gouri Nath Banerjee, son

of Radhanath Banerjee was allotted CMPF Account

No. BKR/4/348. Both these documents have been

filed by the management which reveal that

according to the Allotment Regist er of Ajoy-II

14

Colliery, Gouri Nath Banerjee was a beneficiary of

CMPF with Account No. BKR/4/348 and Allotment

Register reveals that his date of joining was

22.03.1982………..”

20. The petitioner’s witness also deposed that “no verification of such

transfer order was done by the management to find out if genuine or

not”.

21. The employee worked for 10 years and was granted two promotions. This

also shows he was qualified for the post where he worked /was

attached.

22. The findings on which the impugned award was passed are as follows:-

“…………..The management of ECL thereafter produced

Exhibit M-4, a letter dated 03.12.2018, issued by the

Regional Commissioner-I (SG), CMPF, which demolishes

the management's own case that Gouri Nath Banerjee

did not work at Ajoy-II Colliery. It transpires from the

communication made to the General Manager, Bankola

Area that as per the Allotment Register of Ajoy-II Colliery

Sri Gouri Nath Banerjee, S/o- Radhanath Banerjee was

allotted CMPF Account No.: BKR/4/348. There is

nothing to disbelieve Exhibit M-4 and Exhibit M-5, which

originate from an independent source, the Coal Mines

Provident Fund authority, over which the charged

employee has no control or influence. The unescapable

conclusion therefore is that the employer failed to

discharge their onus of proving the charge of misconduct

by fraud against Gouri Nath Banerjee under Clause

17(i)(a), 17(i)(o), and 17(i)(u) of the Model Standing Order

applicable to the management………..”

23. From the said facts, findings, evidence on record and circumstances, the

impugned award being in accordance with law requires no interference.

15

24. WPA 9805 of 2025 is dismissed.

25. Applications, if any, connected thereto stand disposed of

consequently.

26. Photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, be given to the

parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities.

(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)