Authority: High Court at Calcutta (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 08 Oct 2026

Case Overview

  • Petition: WPA 27880 of 2025, Jaya Shree Textiles (petitioner) vs. Prabhu Nath Yadav & Anr. (respondent workman).
  • The petition challenged an award dated 19 Sep 2025 passed by the 3rd Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal (Case No. 01 of 2016) under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, published on 09 Oct 2025.
  • The Division Bench of this Court on 10 Mar 2025 had remanded the matter, limiting the scope of re‑appraisal to evidence already on record.
  • Charges against the workman (security guard‑Jamadar) were theft of electrical cables (~80 kg), loss of confidence, and acts subversive of discipline. Charge sheet dated 27 Nov 2014, amended on 7 May 2015; a criminal proceeding and seizure of the alleged stolen goods were also underway.
  • The workman’s statements placed him at the Rishra railway premises at around 10 am on the day of the incident, while he later claimed travel to Uttar Pradesh with his family from Bandel station. The cables were recovered near Serampore station; the workman’s failure to disclose his location after 10.30 am was highlighted by the petitioner.
  • The petitioner argued that the tribunal erred by applying criminal‑trial standards of proof, whereas disciplinary inquiries should rely on pre‑ponderance of probabilities and circumstantial evidence.
  • Counsel for the petitioner (Mr. Soumya Majumder, Sr. Adv.) relied on State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya (2011) and Sankha Dutta vs. Union of India (WPA 105556 of 2028).
  • The respondent contended that the petitioner is a textile manufacturing company and that he was employed as a security guard.
  • Facts of the alleged theft: cables purchased and stored in the admin building from 4 Sep 2014; workman applied for leave 10‑30 Nov 2014 to visit Rasra, UP (sanctioned 31 Oct 2014 by Administrative Manager Mr. Rakesh Pandey). On 3 Nov 2014 the cables were reported missing. Charge sheet (Exbt. 11) alleged that on 10 Nov 2014 at about 2.15 pm the workman was caught red‑handed in Sreerampur area by Mr. Pandey and security guard Shri Kajal Dutta, with a makeshift gunny bag containing the cables. He was taken to Serampore Police Station, escaped, later arrested; the cables had been missing since 03 Oct 2014.
  • The workman’s reply (06 Dec 2014) denied the allegations, stating he travelled with his wife and son to Bandel station, that unknown persons placed a gunny bag near his luggage, and that GRP/RPF assaulted his wife and son. He was later arrested from his quarter on the night of 10 Nov 2014.
  • The workman questioned the delay in reporting the missing cables, the feasibility of carrying 80 kg in a gunny bag, and the integrity of the fellow guard Kajal Dutta, who had earlier been suspended for theft.
  • The company dismissed the workman by letter dated 15 Jun 2016; the tribunal’s award was subsequently challenged.
  • The Court cited several Supreme Court decisions:
  • Airports Authority of India vs. Pradip Kumar Banerjee (2025) – disciplinary authorities need not follow strict criminal evidentiary rules; pre‑ponderance of probability suffices.
  • State of Rajasthan vs. Heem Singh (2020) – judicial review is limited; courts may intervene only on perverse or unsupported findings.
  • B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India (1995) – disciplinary authorities have exclusive fact‑finding power; High Courts may mould relief only in rare cases of injustice.
  • Union of India vs. Dalbir Singh (2021) – criminal acquittal does not bar departmental action; standards of proof differ.
  • Noida Entrepreneurs Association vs. NOIDA (2007) – departmental and criminal proceedings are distinct; no automatic stay of disciplinary inquiry.
  • Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corp. vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya (1997) – disciplinary inquiries assess suitability for removal, not criminal guilt.
  • The Division Bench in FMA 54 of 2025 directed the tribunal to re‑appraise the entire evidence independently, giving both parties a fair opportunity to address the quantum of punishment.
  • The Court observed that the workman had cross‑examined management witnesses and re‑examined himself, indicating a robust defence.
  • The tribunal’s award was found to have gone beyond the permissible scope of re‑appraisal, effectively re‑evaluating evidence in a manner akin to a criminal trial, which the Court deemed perverse.

Final Outcome

  • The award dated 19 Sep 2025 passed by the 3rd Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, is set aside.
  • WPA 27880 of 2025 is allowed.
  • All connected applications, if any, are disposed of.
  • An urgent certified website copy of the judgment shall be supplied after compliance with legal formalities.

Topics: Labor Law, Industrial Disputes