IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10826 of 2002 ZIAUR REHMAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 6 09.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In due exercise of power conferred under the Industrial Disputes Act, the Ministry of Labour, Government of India vide notification dated 30.03.1999 made a reference contained in Annexure – 1 for adjudication as under: “Whether Sh. Ziyaur Rahman has worked from 01.01.1991 to 31.1.97? If yes, whether the action of the management of UCO Bank, Patna in terminating his service w.e.f. 1.9.97 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?” The industrial Tribunal, Patna was thereafter called upon to answer the reference. An award on 22nd June, 2001 came to be made, where the tribunal held that since the petitioner had not worked for 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding his retrenchment, therefore, there was neither violation of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act nor was the workman entitled for reinstatement. This award contained - 2 - in Annexure – 3 is under challenge in the present writ application. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the award on question has been rendered in breach of law which requires immediate interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The award neither correlates to the finding and the pleadings on record nor it is based on the material exhibit or evidence which forms part of the reference under question. It is a categorical statement made on behalf of the petitioner that despite the claim of the petitioner that he was a workman having performed his duties under the respondents from 01.01.1991 to 31.01.1997, a fact also accepted in the written statement of the Bank and other supporting evidence in this regard, the tribunal has shifted the goal post by recording that the petitioner had worked under the Bank till 24.04.1997. Further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that this finding is not based on any evidence whatsoever. Mere submission or - 3 - the stand of the Bank taken during the course of argument will not form the basis of a finding. Findings have to be on a firmer ground which has to be based on cogent evidence which has come during the proceeding and not beyond it. It was in this background that the court directed production of the original records of the reference no. 168 of 1999, which refers to reference no. 2(C) of 2001, in which the award has been passed. The Court had occasion to go through the original records and has no hesitation in recording its opinion that the award rendered by the industrial tribunal does not conform or relate to the material exhibit which is on record. Though, the tribunal had recorded that the petitioner had filed a petition before the ALC(C) stating that he had worked till 31.08.1997, but the so-called petition is neither on record nor was it marked. There is no indication as to why this stand or statement made by the Bank has been accepted without verifying this position and despite the petitioner in his evidence explaining - 4 - the circumstances under which the said petitioner before the ALC(C) was filed. The Court also finds it’s strange that despite any prayer or any amendment sought in the written statement filed on behalf of the Bank they have been allowed to change their stand that the retrenchment of the petitioner was not 31.01.1997, but 24.04.1997. This is a strange kind of procedure as well as discussion of material evidence which has been adopted by the tribunal. This amounts to error on the face of not only on record but renders the judgment and the award tenuous. The Court, therefore, has no option but to quash the award dated 22.06.2001, remand the matter back to the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal at Patna, with a direction that he shall render a fresh award after hearing the parties, but without taking any further evidence on the matter. He shall confine himself to the evidence which is available on record and thereafter pass a fresh award. The matter should be decided within a - 5 - time frame which should be within a period of three months from the date the two parties appear on notice in this regard. The original records be transmitted back to the Industrial Tribunal, Patna forthwith. The writ application is allowed. Annexure – 3 is quashed with the above direction to the court below. Rajeev/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)