- (1.) The present writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an award, passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad, dated 8th September, 2008 in Reference Case No. 220 of 2000 (Annexure6 to the memo of the petition) whereby, the reference of the present petitioner has been dismissed and it has been held that the action taken by the respondentManagement in dismissing the present petitioner is true and correct and the present petitioner workman is not entitled for any relief. Against this award, the present petition has been preferred.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was sick and therefore, the petitioner could not join his services and therefore, there was absenteeism of the petitioner. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated and therefore, the award, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Management has also not properly conducted the inquiry; and the quantum of punishment is grossly disproportionate of the nature of the misconduct. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the Industrial Tribunal at Dhanbad and hence, the award, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the respondent, who has submitted that there is no error in conducting the inquiry against the present petitioner. For no justifiable reasons, the petitioner has remained absent for the period running from 24th February, 1997 to 11th December, 1997 and hence, a chargesheet was issued. The charges levelled against the petitioner has been proved. As per inquiry report, adequate opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner and the Management has laid before the inquiry officer adequate evidences. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that in past also, similar was the behaviour of the present petitioner for several years. In the year, 1995, the petitioner worked for only 54 days and most of the days, the petitioner was absent. Similarly, in the year, 1996, the petitioner worked only for 65 days and for rest of the year, he was absent. In the year, 1997, the petitioner worked only for 39 days and for rest of the year, he was absent. In the year 1997, he worked in the month of January and upto 23rd February. 1997 and practically for the whole year, there was absenteeism. Moreover, the petitioner workman vide document at Exhibit M4 has admitted his guilt. In these set of circumstances, the quantum of punishment inflicted upon the present petitioner cannot be levelled as shockingly disproportionate and grossly disproportionate. This aspect of the matter has been correctly appreciated by the Industrial Tribunal at Dhanbad and therefore, the present petition, deserves to be dismissed.;