Reinstatement Award Vitiated for Not Deciding Domestic Enquiry Validity | HC

Case Details: Management of Betjan Tea Estate Makum vs. Keshab Borah [2026] 187 taxmann.com 824 (HC-Gauhati)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Devashis Baruah, J.
• A. Jahid, Adv. for the Petitioner.
• Ms A. Begum, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the respondent-workman, employed as a Mohorer in the petitioner tea estate, was issued a show-cause notice alleging fraudulent entry of 22 temporary workmen in the master roll and authorisation of payments to non-working temporary workers causing a loss of about Rs. 0.89 lakhs, along with unruly conduct and damage to office property.

He denied the allegations. A domestic enquiry found him guilty of gross misconduct under the Standing Orders; after alleging bias and denial of adequate opportunity, he was dismissed from service.

An industrial dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal to determine whether the dismissal was justified and the relief, if any. Only the management appeared and filed a written statement stating that it would rely on the domestic enquiry and, if the enquiry were held invalid or violative of natural justice, would lead evidence to prove the charges. The proceedings thereafter went ex parte against the workman; one management witness was examined, and an ex parte award was passed.

The workman challenged the ex parte award before the High Court, which, upon consent of the parties, set aside the award and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
Post-remand, the workman filed his written statement. The management was permitted to adduce further evidence, including that of the Enquiry Officer, and three additional management witnesses filed affidavits and were cross-examined. The Tribunal framed three issues, including Issue No. 1 regarding whether the domestic enquiry was justifiable and conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The management did not seek adjudication of Issue No. 1 as a preliminary issue and, along with the workman, proceeded to adduce evidence on merits.

The Tribunal, by the impugned award, held the dismissal unjustified and directed reinstatement with full back wages, but rendered no finding on Issue No. 1 and decided only the remaining issues on merits.
On writ petition, the management challenged the award contending that the Tribunal had failed to decide the validity of the domestic enquiry before adjudicating the merits of the dismissal.

It was noted that, where the Industrial Tribunal framed three issues, including Issue No. 1 as to whether the domestic enquiry was justifiable and conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice, but rendered no finding on Issue No. 1 and proceeded to decide only the remaining issues on merits, the impugned Award directing reinstatement with full back wages could not be sustained in law.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order of the Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh in Reference Case No.04/2012 (Award dated 20.01.2025) (para 40) set aside

List of Cases Referred to

• Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh 1972 taxmann.com 72 (SC) (para 20)
• Cholan Roadways Ltd. v. G. Thirugnanasambandam [2005] 2004 taxmann.com 3739 (SC) (para 21)
• Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. v. H. Amaresh 2006 taxmann.com 2746 (SC) (para 21)
• Kurukshetra University v. Prithvi Singh [2018] 2 taxmann.com 1838 (SC) (para 33)
• Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Lakshmidevamma 2001 taxmann.com 4777 (SC) (para 34)
• Shambhu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda [1984] 1983 taxmann.com 1404 (SC) (para 35).