- (1.) The petitioner impugns the award dated 21.12.1993. He had raised an industrial dispute regarding the validity of his termination and the following question was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication:- "Whether termination of services of the workman is justified and in order? If not, to what relief/exact amount of compensation is he entitled to? The case as set up by the petitioner was that his services were wrongly terminated on 2.6.1985 even though he had been working as Daftri since December 1956, without any notice or compensation. The Management refuted the claim of the petitioner and contended that the petitioner had applied for leave for 31.5.1985 and 1.6.1985 and thereafter he absented himself from duty. The petitioner was suspended on 30.10.1985 and this fact was communicated to him vide two letters dated 30th and 31st of October 1985. A charge-sheet was served upon him at his home address vide letter dated 6.1.1986 and he was directed to file a reply to it. No reply, however, was filed and thereafter Shri Harnek Singh, Assistant Manager was appointed as Enquiry Officer on 28.4.1986 who also informed the petitioner vide letter dated 2.7.1986 about the same. The petitioner, however, did not participate in the enquiry proceedings and the Enquiry Officer through his own efforts discovered that the petitioner had left the country to go abroad. When the petitioner returned to the country a charge-sheet was served upon him on 27.6.1987 who then filed a reply to the charge-sheet admitting his guilt of being absent from duty, upon which he was dismissed from service.
(2.) The Tribunal framed the following two issues for determination:- i) Whether the reference is not maintainable as alleged in legal objections taken in written statement? ii) Whether the order of termination of services of the workman is justified and order? iii) Relief."
(3.) The Tribunal then went on to conclude against the petitioner which is now the cause of grievance to him.;