DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER BHARAT OVERSEAS BANK LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the interim award dated 28.5.2001 of the first respondent/Tribunal made in I.D.No.74 of 2000, directing the petitioner/ Management to let in evidence on the merits of the charges and to prove the charges with respect to the alleged misconduct of the second respondent/ workman in a detailed enquiry, the petitioner/Management had preferred this writ petition for issue of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent/ Tribunal in I.D.No.74 of 200 0 and to quash its award dated 28.5.2001.

(2.) The Government, by their letter dated 19/20.9.2000, referred the following disput

(3.) Aggrieved by the interim award dated 28.5.2001 of the first respondent/Tribunal made in I.D.No.74 of 2000, directing the petitioner/ Management to let in evidence on the merits of the charges and to prove the charges with respect to the alleged misconduct of the second respondent/ workman in a detailed enquiry, the petitioner/Management had preferred this writ petition for issue of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent/ Tribunal in I.D.No.74 of 200 0 and to quash its award dated 28.5.2001. Aggrieved by the interim award dated 28.5.2001 of the first respondent/Tribunal made in I.D.No.74 of 2000, directing the petitioner/ Management to let in evidence on the merits of the charges and to prove the charges with respect to the alleged misconduct of the second respondent/ workman in a detailed enquiry, the petitioner/Management had preferred this writ petition for issue of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent/ Tribunal in I.D.No.74 of 200 0 and to quash its award dated 28.5.2001. 2. The Government, by their letter dated 19/20.9.2000, referred the following dispute for adjudication before the first respondent/ Tribunal:- "Whether the punishment of discharge imposed by Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd., Chennai on Shri N.Gopinathan is legal and justified? If not, what relief is the workman entitled?" 3. According to the petitioner/management, an enquiry was conducted against the second respondent/workman with reference to the charges relating to the alleged misconduct, and finding the charges were held proved and the second respondent/workman was guilty of the charges, the petitioner/Management proposed to impose a punishment of discharging the second respondent/workman from service, of course after giving a personal hearing with reference to the proposed punishment based on the enquiry conducted by the disciplinary authority.