PERMOD KOHLI, J. - (1.) PETITIONER -workmen is aggrieved of the award dated 28th December, 1996, whereby the Reference made to the Industrial Tribunal No. 2 at Dhanbad has been answered against the petitioner -workmen.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated facts as emerge from the record are that on 04.11.1974, petitioner was deputed as Weigh -Bridge Clerk under Mudidih Colliery. He is alleged to be responsible for under weighing coal loaded in Truck bearing No. BHR 7185. Instead of showing the weight of the coal as 20.460 tonnes he showed the weight as 19.460 tonnes. Similarly, the weight of coal for another Truck bearing No. BRW 9693 was shown as 19,400 tonnes instead of 20,400 tonnes. On the following date, he was served with the charge sheet i.e. on 04.11.1974. On the basis of the Report of the Enquiry Officer, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 24th February, 1975 with effect from 26th February, 1975. The Union raised the dispute. However, the appropriate Government vide its order dated 22nd June, 1979 refused to make reference. It is evident from the record that no steps were taken thereafter for either challenging the dismissal or initiating any further proceedings in accordance with law. It was only in 1990 a fresh dispute was raised on 06.08.1996 with the Assistant Labour Commissioner and on failure of conciliation proceedings a fresh reference was sought. This time, appropriate Government, made a reference on 05.07.1993 to the Industrial Tribunal No. II at Dhanbad, which was registered as Reference Case No. 93 of 1993. The reference has been answered by the impugned award. The Industrial Tribunal noticed the point of reference, which is quoted, herein below: Whether the demand of Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union for reinstatement with full back wages to Shri Batul Chandra Tiwari Weight -Bridge Clerk in Mudidih Colliery is justified? If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled to? It is admitted case of the parties that no evidence was led before the Labour Court. However, the workman admitted that the Enquiry conducted against him was fair and proper. On the basis of this admission and also in view of the fact that the reference was sought after a lapse of more than 15 years i.e. from the date of dismissal, tribunal refused to grant any relief to the workman. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Industrial Tribunal was required to examine the manner and method of conducting the enquiry for arriving at a conclusion, whether the enquiry was fair and proper. It is further contended that the record of the enquiry was never produced before the Labour Court and thus the finding is not sustainable in law. It is further stated that the claim of the petitioner should have been examined by the Tribunal in the right perspective, which has not been done.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the award impugned in this writ petition.;