B M MANDALIA Vs. MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Pathak, the learned advocate for the petitioner workman and Shri Shelat, the learned advocate for the respondent. In the present petition, the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad ("The Tribunal" for short) in reference NO. IT 265 of 1976 dated 2 2/06/1987 is challenged by the petitioner workman. Under the impugned award, the Tribunal has rejected the reference and has also rejected prayer of the petitioner for reinstatement with continuity of service will full back wages for the intervening period. Feeling aggrieved by the said impugned award, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) This Court, while admitting this petition by issuing rule thereon, has refused the interim relief.

(3.) The facts of the present case, in short, are that the petitioner was dismissed from service on 25th October, 1975 by the respondent. According to the petitioner workman, he had joined the services of the respondent bank on 28/01/1966 and was working as Account Clerk at Rajkot. That the petitioner was served with a chargesheet wherein serious allegations against the petitioner were levelled in respect of dishonesty and misappropriation. In all, four charges were levelled against the petitioner. Said chargesheet was produced before the tribunal vide Exh. 5/1 and reply thereto given by the petitioner was produced at Exh. 5/2 in which it was pointed out that it was a bona fide mistake in calculation and there was no intention on his part to misappropriate the amount as alleged and also there was no any dishonest intention as alleged. Since the petitioner had challenged the legality and validity of the departmental inquiry before the tribunal, the tribunal decided the said preliminary issue vide Exh. 11 and came to the conclusion that the departmental inquiry which was conducted against the petitioner is illegal and invalid and against the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal has given permission to the respondent to prove and establish the misconduct levelled against the petitioner by leading oral evidence against the petitioner before the tribunal. The respondent has examined one Ibrahimkhan Babarkhan and the District Officer of the Bank vide Exh. 15 in the proceedings. The petitioner had examined one Bhupat ManilalMandalia at Exh. 20 and has produced necessary documents vide Exh. 5, 10, 12 and 13. After documentary evidence and the oral evidence was led and produced before the tribunal, the tribunal has examined the entire case on merits as if the inquiry was conducted before the tribunal.