DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER Vs. RATANSINGH SISODIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. N.S. Shevade, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.P. Jadav, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The petitioner, being aggrieved by the award dtd.1/10/1992 made by the Industrial Tribunal (Gujarat), Ahmedabad in Reference (ITC) No.44 of 1991, is before this Court.

(3.) Short facts necessary for disposal of the present writ application are that the respondent workman was served with a chargesheet, inquiry was conducted against him and after recording into his guilt, the Disciplinary Authority directed his termination. The appeal against the order of termination proved futile, therefore, the workman came to the Industrial Tribunal. Present petitioner employer appeared before the Industrial Tribunal, filed its pleadings and submitted that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with law, rules and regulations and the award of the punishment was commensurate with the wrong committed by the workman. However, the learned tribunal, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, in para 15 of its judgement observed that the inquiry and award of the punishment were in accordance with law and there was nothing wrong. In para 16 of the judgement, the Industrial Tribunal rejected the technical objection raised by the petitioner and then in para 17 of the judgement, even after rejecting the Reference relating to reinstatement, it, however, directed payment of Rs.50,000=00 as compensation to the workman. It appears that being aggrieved by the dismissal of the Reference and non-grant of the relief of reinstatement, the respondent came to this Court in Special Civil Application No.8485 of 1996. The said petition came to be dismissed on 16/1/1997. However, an observation was made by the learned Single Judge that as the respondent authority (present petitioner) had so far not questioned the validity and legality of award of Rs.50,000=00, they should comply with the directions contained in the impugned award. The said order was challenged before the Supreme Court, but leave was refused and Special Leave Petition filed by the workman was rejected.