VINAYAK HIMMATLAL RAWAL Vs. BHARAT PETROLEUM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Shukla, learned advocate for the respondent.

(2.) By present petition, the original claimant has challenged award dated 317.2013 passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunalcum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (CGITA) No.100 of 2004 [Old Reference (ITC) No.73 of 1998] whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the reference.

(3.) So far as factual backdrop is concerned, it has emerged from the record and from rival submissions that present petitioner was employed by present respondent. The petitioner worked with the respondent as Engineering Assistant since December 1978. In April 1995, the respondent issued a show-cause notice with regard to certain misconduct allegedly committed by present petitioner. According to the petitioner, the allegations were false and the notice was issued to victimise him. The petitioner submitted reply to the said notice which was not found satisfactory. Therefore, the respondent issued a charge-sheet dated 8.6.1995. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet. Thereupon, the respondent decided to conduct departmental enquiry. According to the petitioner, sufficient opportunity of hearing and defence was not granted during the enquiry proceeding. Upon conclusion of the enquiry, the officer, who conducted the enquiry, submitted his findings and report. The Disciplinary Authority considered the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer.