BANK OF BARODA Vs. VIRSEN SANTHRAM PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FROM the impugned award of the Industrial Tribunal in a pending reference dated 28-9-1994 the present two writ petitions. Writ Petition No. 377 of 1995 has been filed by the employer. It is contended therein, that Part-1 Award to the extent it has held that the denial of representation by lawyer to the workman vitiates the enquiry, is liable to be quashed and set aside.

(2.) WRIT Petition No. 2062 of 1996 is by the workman contending that even if this Court comes to the conclusion if the findings based on which Part-1 of the Award is liable to be set aside for the reasons given in the order, nonetheless the findings on the other contentions which were raised before the Industrial Tribunal and answered against the workman are perverse. This must result in holding that the enquiry conducted was conducted against the principles of natural justice and fair play, as such the award as made is not liable to be set aside. Whether a petition against a mere finding is maintainable is debatable. However, the award is before this Court in a petition filed by the employer invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction, under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India. While considering the award it is open to the Court to consider its legality and in the event the Court comes to the conclusion that the reason given for setting aside the award is unsustainable, yet the award can still be sustained, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the findings on the other issues raised before the Industrial Tribunal are perverse and those findings are liable to be reversed in favour of the workman.

(3.) WITH the above brief narration, I may now address myself to the issue arising in both the petitions. For the purpose of clarity and by agreement of Counsel, the facts as set out in Writ Petition No. 2062 of 1996 filed by the workman will be considered for the purpose of discussing the issues in controversy in both the petitions. Again for the sake of clarity and to avoid conflict, reference will be to workman and employer. Workman joined the service of the employer on 27-7-1972. Workman was suspended on 28-9-1985. By letter of 4-11-1985 workman sought reasons for his suspension. On 9-12-1985 the workman was served with the charge sheet charging him as under: