M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) IN this writ application the petitioner -concerned workman has prayed for quashing the Award dated 15.1.1998 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad in reference Case No. 1 of 1986, whereby he has held that the dismissal of the petitioner from service was justified.
(2.) THE Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of its power conferred under Sec.10(i)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes to the Tribunal for adjudication : "Whether the action of the management of Loyabad Colliery of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Sijua Area in dismissing from service Shri Baljore Passi, Driller w.e.f. 16.5.1984 is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen is entitled - The case of the workman is that he was permanent driller of Loyabad Colliery. The management with an ulterior motive to victimize the concerned workman issued him a charge sheet dated 24.3.1984 on the ground of his unauthorized absence from duty. The petitioner/workman represented before the management several time for allowing him to resume his duty but without any effect. It is alleged that due to poverty and inhuman torture of the management, the workman lost his mental balance. He remained under the treatment of the doctor at Ranchi Manasik Arogyasala. After recovery from illness he reported for duty but the management instead of allowing him to resume his duty handed over letter of dismissal dated 16.5.1984. The case of the petitioner -workman is that the charge sheet dated 23.11.1983 was never served on him and the inquiry officer was in hot haste completed ex - parte inquiry in one day. According to the petitioner, the action of the management in dismissing from service was not justified.
(3.) THE case of the Management on the other hand is that, petitioner -workman and his co -workman Sripat Chamar was on duty on 23.8.1983 in the first shift in No. 5 Pit mine of Loyabad Colliery. They refused to drill the holes required for setting safari support. Thereafter, they were issued with a charge sheet dated 24.8.1983 for disobeying the lawful order of the superiors. They submitted the replies admitting that they were ordered to drill safari holes but they refused to do so. Further case of the management is that they were stopped from attending their duties from 24.3.1983. Consequently, both the petitioner and the co -worker Sripat Chamar were issued warning letter and were directed to join their duties. Immediately thereafter, Sripat Chamar resumed his duty with effect from 30.5.1983 but the petitioner did not join his duty and continued absenting from his duties. Thereafter, petitioner was issued charge sheet for commission of misconduct of unauthorized absence from 24.3.19S3. Petitioner - workman refused to accept charge sheet. Thereafter, a departmental proceeding was conducted and letter of inquiry was sent to the petitioner -workman but he refused to accept the letter, consequently the inquiry officer conducted inquiry ex -parte and held the petitioner guilty of misconduct. On the basis of report of inquiry officer the management dismissed him from service.;