An employer’s fraud charge cannot stand without evidence displacing independent service records.

Respondent No. 5, Gouri Nath Banerjee, joined Nakrakonda Colliery in 1984, claiming transfer from Ajoy-II Colliery.

ECL alleged he had never worked at Ajoy-II and had obtained employment using fabricated transfer and service documents.

Following a departmental inquiry, ECL dismissed him in 1996; the industrial dispute was referred to the CGIT.

After earlier proceedings and a remand, the CGIT set aside the dismissal, finding that ECL had not proved the charge and directing that Banerjee be treated as in service until superannuation, with back wages and consequential benefits.

ECL challenged the resulting award, relying on alleged discrepancies in CMPF records and the absence of a genuine transfer order.

The Union also contended that the award had become enforceable and binding and that the writ petition was delayed.

Whether the CGIT’s decision to set aside Banerjee’s dismissal and award back wages and consequential benefits warranted interference in judicial review

Whether the award’s enforceability and the alleged delay in filing the writ petition rendered the petition not maintainable

Sections 17(2), 17A and 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were invoked by the Union in support of its contention that a published and enforceable award is final and binding; Sections 29 and 32 were cited concerning penalties for breach of an award

The CGIT relied on the principle in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan that the inquiry report and second show-cause notice must be supplied to the employee, as well as a Coal India circular on that requirement.

The High Court’s stated reasoning principally turned on the evidence supporting the Tribunal’s finding that ECL had failed to prove the alleged misconduct, rather than on an express analysis of these statutory provisions or precedents.

The Court noted that the CMPF letter and Ajoy-II Colliery allotment register identified Banerjee, recorded his CMPF account number, and showed his date of joining as 22 March 1982.

It accepted the Tribunal’s assessment that these records came from an independent source and undermined ECL’s claim that Banerjee had never worked at Ajoy-II.

The Court also noted the evidence that ECL had not verified the alleged transfer order, and that Banerjee had worked at Nakrakonda for ten years and received two promotions.

On that record, it found the award to be in accordance with law and requiring no interference.

The Court did not separately explain its treatment of the Union’s arguments concerning finality or delay.

Connected applications, if any, were disposed of consequentially.