SUPERINTENDENT, RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE Vs. P.V. UPGANLAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Assistant Solicitor General and the learned counsel for respondent No.1.

(2.) The captioned writ petition by the Union of India is instituted challenging the Award of Industrial Tribunal rendered on a reference made by the Central Government under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 touching the removal of the respondent from service in the Postal Department while employed as a Postal Sorting Assistant. The captioned writ appeal was filed by the establishment challenging an interlocutory order passed by the learned Single Judge directing that, pending consideration of the writ petition, 25% of the back wages may be released along with other benefits emanating from the Award. That obviously means the retiral benefits due to the employee has also to be released in terms of that interlocutory order. There could be an apparent confusion while giving effect to that interlocutory order as regards the last pay that was eligible to be drawn or that could be certified as the last pay drawn for the purpose of determining the retiral benefits. We, therefore, thought it appropriate to withdraw the writ petition to be heard by the Division Bench along with the writ appeal. This is how the writ petition is before the Division Bench along with captioned writ appeal.

(3.) Considering the contentions in the writ petition and the arguments advanced on behalf of the Union, it is seen that following the reference made by the Central Government, the Management did not produce the inquiry file before the Industrial Tribunal. It chose to lead evidence to sustain the removal of the employee from service. It offered a particular officer as witness. His testimony was found by the Tribunal to be shaky. He did not have any direct knowledge of the matters and spoke only from the records, though such records were not available before the Tribunal. That position notwithstanding, the material evidence tendered by the Management included Exhibits M-4-A, M-4-B, M-4-C, M-4-F, M-4-G, M-4-I, M-4-L and M- 4-M and M-4-N which showed that medical certificates were placed by the delinquent at the relevant point of time before the Management. Though the witness of the Management stated before the Tribunal that leave was refused, there was no documentary evidence coming forth in that regard.