RAJESH SHANKAR, J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the award dated 10.07.2001 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2 at Dhanbad in Reference No. 147 of 1995 whereby, the reference was answered in favour of the Management holding that the workman has failed to satisfy the Management about his performance of work as Daily Rated Worker.
(2.) The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the father of the concerned workman had died in Chasnalla disaster and in pursuance of the policy decision of the Management, the mother of the concerned workman, namely, Sova Devi was provided employment. The mother of the concerned workman was insisted by the Management to take voluntary retirement in order to provide employment to her dependant son, as the Management was in need of male workman. Thereafter, the mother of the concerned workman submitted resignation and, accordingly, the Management provided employment to the concerned workman vide letter dated 24.02.1992 as Category-I Mazdoor. The case of the petitioner is that the concerned workman was appointed as a permanent workman, which is evident from the appointment letter itself. It is further submitted that his service condition would be guided by the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders. The Management vide letter dated 01.06.1992 terminated the service of the petitioner during the probation period on the ground of bad conduct and unsatisfactory performance. The concerned workman raised industrial dispute through the petitioner-Union and when conciliation failed, the matter was referred to the learned Tribunal vide Reference No. 147 of 1995. The term of the reference was "Whether the action of the management of Chasnala Washery of M/s IISCO Ltd. in terminating the service of Shri Dhiraj Kumar Sharma S/o Smt. Sova Devi w.e.f. 01.06.1992 is justified? If not, to what relief Shri Dhiraj Kumar Sharma is entitled and from which date?" The learned Tribunal, after appreciating the evidences of both the parties, came to the conclusion that the concerned workman did not complete the training due to his long absence for about 2 months without assigning any reason and as such the Management bonafidely terminated him from service finding him unsuitable and inefficient during the period of training. It has been further held that the order of termination was without any malafide intention.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the concerned workman was appointed as a permanent workman as Category-I Mazdoor and his service would be governed by the Certified Standing Orders of the Management. It is further submitted that as per the Certified Standing Orders, bad conduct and unsatisfactory performance is "misconduct" and the workman can be dismissed from service only by issuing charge-sheet and holding an enquiry. Admittedly, neither charge-sheet was served on the concerned workman nor enquiry was conducted before terminating him from service. It is also submitted that the principle of natural justice has not been followed while terminating the concerned workman and as such the order of termination is fit to be set aside.;