JUDGMENT
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 Section 10(1)(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?”
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The Tribunal at the first instance decided the preliminary issue vide order dated 1.12.1986 and held that the ex- parte inquiry against the petitioner was not fair, proper and in accordance with principles of natural justice. Parties were therefore allowed to adduce fresh evidence for establishing charges against the petitioner. The management as also the petitioner adduced their evidence. The Tribunal after considering the entire evidence came to the conclusion that petitioner received second charge sheet but he did not give any explanation and inspite of receipt of notice he did not attend the inquiry. The Tribunal further held that petitioner failed to explain his absence from duty. On the basis of those findings the Tribunal held that dismissal of the petitioner from service by the management was justified.
6. I have heard Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner/workman and Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the management.
7. Mrs. Pal assailed the finding of the Tribunal was being illegal and perverse in law. Learned counsel submitted that the workman was stopped by the management to attend the duty and as a matter of fact because of mental sickness of the petitioner he could not attend his duty. Learned counsel submitted that in any view of the matter, punishment of dismissal from service is too harsh and is disproportionate to the charges leveled against the petitioner. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Workman of Fire Stones Tyre and Rubber Company India Pvt. Ltd. v. Management and Ors. AIR 1973 SC 1227.
8. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the management on the other hand submitted that the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence, particularly admission of the workman, held that inspite of receipt of charge sheet the workman did not participate in the inquiry. Learned counsel submitted that no satisfactory evidence was adduced by the petitioner for his mental sickness. Learned counsel drawn my attention to Annexure-A to the counter affidavit and submitted that the workman asked the management not to make any correspondence with him. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mithilesh Singh v. Union of India and Ors., (2003) LIC 1152.
9. From perusal of the impugned award, it appears that petitioner workman was examined as W.W. 1 and in his deposition he admitted that he received two charge sheets and further admitted that during inquiry he had received notice of inquiry but he was sick and therefore could not attend the inquiry. From perusal of An-nexure-E to the counter affidavit, it appears that the workman by letter dated 1.12.1983 asked the management of the colliery that he should not be served any letter in future. The finding recorded by the Tribunal therefore is a finding of fact and therefore, it needs no interference by this Court.
10. The only question that remains for consideration is whether punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the charges leveled against the workman. Admittedly, the dispute arose when the management asked the workman to drill the holes required for setting safari support. The management issued letter of warning and asked them to resume duty. The petitioner did not resume duty on the ground of his treatment in Ranchi Manasik Arogyasala. The workman failed to establish that his absence was bonafide inasmuch as neither he sent any application for leave nor he proved any medical certificate showing his treatment during the said period. It rather appears that petitioner workman was not interested to resume his duty which is evident from Annexure-E by which he asked the management not to make any correspondence in future relating to his service. It further appears that although the Tribunal gave his Award on 15.1.1988 but the workman challenged the said award in 1994 by filing this writ application. This also shows that the workman was neither serious to join his duty nor was interested to participate in the enquiry nor was serious to get his service. Taking all these circumstances, I am of the opinion that dismissal of the workman was justified and Award passed by the Tribunal is perfectly in accordance with law.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this writ application, which is accordingly dismissed.
