Admission of absence is not admission of misconduct justifying the dispensing of a formal domestic inquiry.

The Appellant (Management of Eastern Coalfields Limited) dismissed the Respondent (Workman) from service due to alleged unauthorized absence.

No domestic inquiry was conducted prior to dismissal.

The dispute was raised by the Jharkhand Janta Mazdoor Union and referred by the Central Government to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes (ID) Act, 1947.

On 11.10.2021, the Tribunal held the dismissal illegal and directed reinstatement without back wages.

The Management challenged this via a writ petition, which was dismissed by a Single Judge on 12.07.2024 with costs of ₹25,000.

Despite the absence of any interim stay, the Management refused to reinstate the Workman, who eventually reached the age of superannuation on 31.08.2023.

The Court primarily applied the distinction between Section 2A and Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, holding that the three-year limitation under Section 2A(3) applies only to individual worker applications and not to references made by the Government under Section 10.

an explanation for absence is not a categorical admission of misconduct.

The Court also emphasized the obligation of Public Sector Undertakings to implement judicial awards unless stayed by a higher court.

The Court rejected the Appellant's limitation argument, noting that since the Union raised the dispute and the Government made a reference under Section 10 (which the Management never challenged), the Section 2A(3) bar was inapplicable.

Regarding the lack of inquiry, the Court held that the Workman’s admission of "absence" due to illness was not an admission of the misconduct of "unauthorized absence"; therefore, the Management was still burdened with proving the unauthorized nature of the absence through a fair inquiry.

The Court found no perversity in the Tribunal’s reliance on the medical certificate, characterizing it as a standard record of clinical follow-ups rather than a forgery.

The Court criticized the Management’s conduct as "grossly unfair," noting they used taxpayer funds to litigate while willfully defying the Tribunal’s reinstatement order for two years without a stay, thereby depriving the Workman of wages until his retirement.

The Court held that the reference was competent and the dismissal was illegal due to the lack of a proper inquiry.

the Court directed the Appellant to deposit back wages for the period from the date of the Award (11.10.2021) to the date of superannuation (31.08.2023) within four weeks.

Additionally, the Court imposed costs of ₹25,000 for the appeal and ordered that any delay in payment would attract 9% interest per annum, payable personally by the CMD of the Appellant company.