ASHOK PARIHAR, J. - (1.) THE matter is disposed of finally as prayed by counsel for the parties. Petitioner has challenged the award dated 2.1.2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal Jaipur, by which while holding the termination of services of respondent No. 1 the concerned workman as illegal and unjustified, the concerned workman has been ordered to be reinstated with full back -wages and all consequential benefits.
(2.) THE facts as has come on record are that the concerned workman was appointed on daily wages basis as a Conductor on 24.10.1986. The services of the concerned workman were terminated vide order dated 11.2.1987 on the ground of unsatisfactory work. Since a general reference of demands was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur in regard to employees of the petitioners corporation, a compliant under Section 33 -A was filed by the concerned workman before the tribunal. There is to dispute that before termination of service of the concerned workman neither any chargesheet was issued nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the concerned workman, though certain allegations were made by the petitioner in their reply before the tribunal. However, no permission was sought to prove the allegations before the Tribunal. It was only at the time of final hearing the alternative prayer was made by the counsel for the petitioner Corporation to prove the allegations against the concerned workman. The prayers so made by the petitioner corporation at such belated stage were rejected by the Tribunal on the ground of inordinate delay. In absence of any evidence against the concerned workman the award as referred above was passed by the Tribunal accordingly. Learned counsel for the petitioners while submitting that the Tribunal should have granted permission to the petitioners Corporation to prove the charges against the concerned workman. Learned counsel for the respondent workman while relying on a Judgment of Larger Bench of Supreme Court in case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Lakshmidev, Amma , (2001) 5 SCC 433, submitted that the tribunal was justified in rejecting the prayer made at the last stage of the trial.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, 1 have carefully gone through the material on record as also the judgment referred at the Bar.;