Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) This petition has been filed by the workman for setting aside the award dated 26th May, 1995 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Adjudication Case No.192 of 1993.
(2.) The reference that had been made to the Industrial Tribunal was whether the employers were justified in dispensing with the services of the workman w.e.f. 15th April, 1993 and if not then to what relief the workman was entitled to. The case that had been set up by the petitioner-workman was that he had been appointed on 1st June, 1965 and had been working as a skilled workman. A charge sheet dated 14th November, 1992 was issued to him that he was in the habit of remaining absent from the duties without grant of leave. It was specifically mentioned in the charge sheet that in the year 1990 out of 301 working days he had worked for only 130 days and remained absent from duty without any authorisation and grant of leave for 124 days while in the year 1991 out of 301 working days, he remained absent from duty without any authorisation or grant of leave for 66-1/2days and upto October in the year 1992 he had remained absent from duty without any authorisation for a period of 60 days. He was, therefore, charged for remaining absent without any authorisation or grant of leave which amounted to misconduct under the certified standing orders of the company. The workman filed a reply in which he merely stated that he could not attend the duties as he had fallen ill during the aforesaid period. A domestic enquiry was then held as his explanation was not found to be satisfactory. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 28th December, 1992 holding that the charge levelled against the petitioner-workman was found proved. On the basis of the enquiry report the employers passed an order dismissing the workman from service w.e.f. 15th April, 1993.
(3.) The workman then raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal framed a preliminary issue as to whether the domestic enquiry held by the employer was fair and proper. This issue was decided against the workman and in favour of the employer by the order dated 20th March, 1995. The Tribunal then gave the award dated 26th May, 1995 holding that there was no scope of interfering with the order passed by the employer dismissing the workman from service. It, however, observed that it was open to the employer to consider the request/representation of the workman afresh on compassionate and humanitarian ground in the event such a request was made by him.;