AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) IN the instant writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Award dated 8th August, 1995 passed by the respondent No. 1 in Reference Case No. 34 of 1990 by which the Tribunal, though held that action of the Management in terminating the service of the concerned workman was justified but he held that the concerned workman was entitled to full back wages with effect from 20.2.1990 up to the date of the Award.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the concerned workman unauthorisedly absented from 11.7.1983 without the permission of the management and as such charge -sheet was issued against him though the management waited for explanation of the concerned workman but no explanation was submitted by the workman and therefore, the management terminated the service of the concerned workman. Since no domestic enquiry was held, therefore, the Management made a prayer before the Tribunal to allow the Management to lead evidence. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence led by the Management the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the workman unauthorisedly remained absent for a long period without any information and justification and therefore, it amounted to mis -conduct on the part of the concerned workman and if the concerned workman was dismissed for service, the order of dismissal cannot be said to be unjustified in view of the nature of misconduct committed by him.
(3.) THE Tribunal further held that since the order of the dismissal of the concerned workman was passed without holding any domestic enquiry, and as such the order of dismissal of the concerned workman is illegal.;