- (1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the award dated August 30, 2006 passed by the Central Government industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad whereby the award has been made holding the action of the Management of Telecom Department in not allowing the workman Satish Deo Ram to get him back in the employment, not proper and justified and directing the Management to reinstate him without back wages. The petitioner has challenged the said award mainly on the grounds that the award is not based on proper appreciation of evidence on record, the stand of the Management has not been discussed and the said reference case was barred by the principles of res judicata. It has been stated that though the Management has taken a clear stand, that the concerned workman had abandoned the work and had stopped coming and there was no retrenchment by the management, the said aspect has not been considered by the learned Tribunal. Learned tribunal has also not considered other materials on record. The concerned workman had; earlier filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court, ranchi Bench (as then I was) being C. W. J. C. No. 3423/94 (R) (Annexure-1) and his claim was turned down and the writ petition was dismissed. The concerned workman thereafter is estopped from challenging the action of the management and any further proceeding to that regard is barred by the principles of res judicata.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials placed on record. On perusal of the impugned award, I find that the case of the Management has been thoroughly discussed. Learned Tribunal has, considered the stand taken by the Management. Learned Tribunal has also discussed the evidences adduced by the parties. In view thereof, I find no substance in the submission of learned counsel that the case of the management has not been considered and the evidences and materials have not been discussed. I have also perused the order passed in C. W. J. C. No. 3423/94 (R ). In the said writ petition the petitioner has raised the grievance that despite work being taken by him for two years in the Office of the Telecommunication department, his service was dispensed with without assigning any reason. The said writ petition was dismissed for not showing any appointment letter before the Court. It was held as follows: "in my opinion, in the absence of any appointment letter of the petitioner, it is not possible to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present writ application. "
(3.) WITH the said observation, the writ petition was dismissed. On perusal of the terms of reference, I find that the appropriate government has referred the following disputes for adjudication: "whether the action of the employers in relation to the Deptt. of Telecom, Post and telegraph Electrical Division, Ranchi in not allowing the workman, Sh. Satish Deo Ram, to get him back in the employment was proper and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?";