B.J.SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner workman has challenged in this petition the impugned award dated June 14, 1983 (Annex. 1) passed by the Labour Court and the order of removal dated March 27, 1979 (Annex. 2).
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court failed to appreciate the fact that the domestic inquiry was not properly held against the petitioner. It may be stated that how the domestic inquiry was not properly conducted, has not been made clear. This grievance was not made even before the Labour Court on behalf of the petitioner workman. The contention before the Labour Court was that the allegations made against the petitioner were totally baseless and on such allegations the petitioner was punished. The learned counsel then contended that the impugned order of the disciplinary authority at Annexure -2 as well as the order passed in departmental appeal and the award of the Labour Court are non -speaking orders and, therefore, they are required to be set aside. It is true that the award passed by the Labour Court runs only in four typed pages but it cannot be said that it is a non -speaking order. The award is brief but precise one. It was dealt with each and every submission canvassed at the time of hearing of the matter. The impugned order of removal at Annexure - 2 passed by the disciplinary authority also cannot be said to be a non -speaking order. Going through the order, it clearly appeals that the disciplinary authority concurred with the report of the Inquiry Officer and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the disciplinary authority has thought it fit to pass an order of removal against the petitioner. The appellate authority is not required to give detailed reasons while deciding the appeal. The charges which are found to be proved against the petitioner are so serious that no other order than the order of removal can be passed against the petitioner.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that several contentions raised before the Labour Court were not dealt with and, therefore, the petitioner filed a review petition before the Labour Court, which was rejected by the Labour Court without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, therefore, the matter be remanded to the Labour Court. It is true that a review petition was filed before the Labour Court contending that certain submissions canvassed before the Labour Court were not dealt with in the order but it may be stated that at the time of hearing of that review petition no one remained present before the Labour Court, therefore, the Labour Court had no option but to reject that petition. The said petition was dismissed also on the merits. It appears that for the sake of filing an application, the review petition was filed but thereafter the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Labour Court has chosen not to remain present before the Labour Court for the reasons best known to him. A most important thing is to be noted here that the said order passed by the Labour Court has not at all been challenged in this petition by the petitioner. Therefore, now it is not open to the petitioner to contend before this Court that several submissions raised before the Labour Court were not dealt with by the Labour Court in its award.;