NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, the Petitioners have prayed for quashing the award dated 26th April, 2000 passed in Ref. Case No. 44 of 1992 by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) No. 1, Dhanbad. In the said award, learned Tribunal has held that the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.
(2.) THE brief fact of the case is that Ramesh Chandra, the concerned workman, had been working as Sr. P.A. at General Manager 'sOffice, Kathara Area of M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd. He was dismissed by the General Manager, Kathara by his letter dated 20th/21st November, 1986. According to the concerned workman, he was not served with any charge sheet nor any enquiry was held against him and the punishment of dismissal was arbitrarily awarded without following the established procedure. The concerned workman claimed that at the relevant point of time he was suffering from bone T.B. He was undergoing treatment and continued on sick leave since December, 1984. No notice was served on him regarding any such charge nor he was informed about the proceeding and suddenly he was served with the dismissal order. A dispute was raised against the said order of dismissal, which was referred for adjudication to the CGIT, but the Tribunal upheld the order holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The management, on the other hand, took defence stating, inter alia, that dispute was stale, as it was raised after six years from the date of dismissal. The charge sheet was issued long back and domestic enquiry was held with due notice to the concerned workman. But he did not turn up and did not take part in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer had no option but to proceed with the enquiry ex parte. The enquiry proceeded and on the basis of the material placed on record by the Management, the Enquiry Officer gave his finding. On the basis of the enquiry report, the concerned workman was found guilty of misconduct. Considering the gravity of misconduct, the Petitioner was awarded punishment of dismissal from service.
(3.) THOUGH the stand was taken by the Management that the charge sheet was issued and enquiry was held, no such document could be produced before the Tribunal. The Management was allowed to produce evidence in support of their defence. Four witnesses were examined on their behalf, but even those witnesses could not prove that the charge sheet was served on the concerned workman and opportunity was given to him to defend his case.;