- (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned single Judge in writ petition bearing W.P.(L) No. 222 of 2009 vide order dated 2nd February, 2009. The writ petition preferred by this appellant was dismissed and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent was working as a Senior Time-Keeper in the year 1984 who has shown the presence of one Sri Yudhisthir Bauri, a Miner Loader for the period running from 2nd April, 1984 to 10th April, 1984 as well as on 16th April, 1984 in the Attendance Register to be maintained by the respondent, whereas, on checking it was found that the said worker was absent from the duty and he did not go underground to perform his job. Again it has been pointed out by the counsel for the appellant that as per Munshi's report the said workman had not gone to underground, but, his presence was shown and he got the wages. Therefore, charge-sheet was issued upon the workman in the month of September/ November, 1984. An inquiry was conducted and inquiry report was given on 9th October, 1986 and ultimately the workman was dismissed on 21st April, 1993 for which a Reference Case No. 23 of 1999 was instituted under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Industrial Tribunal No.1 at Dhanbad. It has further been submitted by counsel for the appellant that inquiry was held legally by the order of the Tribunal as stated in paragraph No. 5 of the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal No.1 dated 14th July, 2008. Now, the question before the Tribunal was about the quantum of punishment. It has further been submitted that the punishment inflicted upon the respondent-workman cannot be said to be shockingly or disproportionate nor the same was unreasonably excessive. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported in (2008) 9 SCC 31 : (AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 909) especially at paragraph Nos. 21,35 and 36 thereof and has submitted that non supply of inquiry report is not fatal unless the prejudice has been caused to the workman is not alleged and contended by the workman, it cannot be presumed by the Court itself. In the facts of the present case, workman has never pointed out either before Industrial Tribunal or before the learned single Judge that the prejudice has been caused to him due to non supply of the inquiry report. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the Industrial Tribunal as well as by the learned single Judge, deserves to be quashed and set aside and the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal dated 14th July, 2008 also deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(3.) When the matter is called out none appears on behalf of respondent.;