Tarun Agarwala - (1.) -By means of this petition, the workman has challenged the validity and legality of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, whereby the order of termination of the service of the petitioner has been upheld.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case is that the petitioner was working as a Compounder in the Dispensary maintained by the Sugar Company, i.e., respondent No. 3, The petitioner was charge-sheeted on 6.3.1987, for being absent on duty at 12.30 a.m. on account of which a patient who was in a critical condition could not be given medical attention immediately and eventually the patient expired during the night. The petitioner was later found in a state of inebriation. Another charge-sheet was issued on the charges of drunkenness, riotous and disorderly behaviour while on duty. The explanation given by the petitioner was not found satisfactory and accordingly an enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the matter. The enquiry officer conducted an oral enquiry and provided full opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. The enquiry officer submitted his report on the basis of which the disciplinary authority passed an order of termination. The petitioner, thereafter, raised an industrial dispute challenging the validity of the termination order. The matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on the record gave an award dismissing the claim of the petitioner. The Tribunal held that the enquiry was fair and proper and that the principles of natural justice was not violated and that full opportunity was granted to the petitioner to defend himself. The Tribunal also concluded that the charges levelled against the petitioner were duly proved. The Tribunal further held that the petitioner was not required to be given a copy of the enquiry report, nor was required to be given a second show cause notice. The Tribunal further held that the punishment of termination awarded to the petitioner commensurated with the misconduct and therefore, the Tribunal declined to grant any relief to the petitioner.
(3.) BEING aggrieved by the award, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Heard Sri T. N. Porwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appeared for the respondents.;