Sunita Agarwal, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Yogesh Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing of award dated 14.9.2006 passed by respondent No. 1 in Industrial Dispute No. 81 of 1992.
(2.) BY means of the order dated 7.3.1997, the Tribunal had decided preliminary issue as to whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the management was fair and proper in favour of the workman. It was held that the enquiry officer was not validly appointed and the domestic enquiry was not conducted in a fair and reasonable manner as the workman was not awarded full opportunity to defend himself, vide order dated 28.8.1997 the Tribunal had held that the dismissal of the workman based on charge sheet dated 27.1.1988 was bad and he was entitled for reinstatement with back wages. Challenging the order dated 7.3.1997 and award dated 28.8.1997, writ petition No. 36051 of 1997 was filed by the petitioner bank which was allowed on 15.7.2003 and the tribunal was directed to decide legality of the dismissal order. It was held that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper but the Tribunal had not considered the evidence and material on record which was before the enquiry officer in the domestic enquiry, while holding that the workman had not committed any misconduct and the charges were not proved.
(3.) THE tribunal vide award dated 14.9.2006 has held that the action of the management of ANZ Gryndlays Bank Plc. Kanpur(now known as Standard Chartered Bank, Kanpur) in dismissing respondent No. 2 R.C. Srivastava from service with effect from 22.8.1991 was neither justified nor legal. The workman was held entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages, seniority and all consequential benefits attached with the post. Challenging this award, the present writ petition has been filed.;