- (1.) Heard Mr. Pratul Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D.S. Yadav holding brief of Mr. Ram Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.1.2002 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Lucknow [hereinafter referred as "Tribunal"] in I.D. No. 208 of 2000 (reference No. 41012/180/2000/IR (B-I) dated 30.11.2000) : Veer Singh Vs. DRM, Central Railway, Jhansi and others, whereby while deciding preliminary issue i.e. whether the domestic enquiry against the workman was fair and proper ?, the Tribunal gave liberty to the management to adduce fresh evidence in support of the charge before the Tribunal and to file list of documents and witnesses to be relied in the enquiry before the Tribunal and further the workman was directed to file list of his witness and documents.
(2.) Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that while deciding the preliminary issue with respect to the nature of the enquiry, learned Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction as the Tribunal, on one hand, recorded specific finding on perusal of the record that ex parte enquiry against the workman cannot be faulted as the workman was given full opportunity but he failed to avail on explained pretexts and on the other hand, the Tribunal set-aside the entire proceedings of the enquiry including the stage prior to submission of the enquiry report by the Enquiry Officer to the disciplinary authority upto which he himself did not find any fault.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that despite specific arguments on behalf of the petitioners putforth before the Tribunal that the alleged note-sheet dated 21.9.1995 does not form part of Disciplinary Enquiry against opposite party No.1/workman, as such, no cognizance of the same should have been taken but the Tribunal did not appreciate the same in its true perspective and ignoring the fact that show cause notice was also issued to the workman on the same date, passed the impugned order.;