EJAZ ALAM SIDDIQUE Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed by the petitioner-workman challenging the order dated 06.12.1995 (Annexure-10) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Misc. Case No.28 of 1992 filed by the employer-opposite party no.2 under Section 33 (2) (b) of the I.D. Act 1947 (in short 'the Act') approving the action of the employer in removing the petitioner from service with effect from 15.07.1992.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Khalasi on 07.11.1986 in the Rourkela Steel Plant under sports quota and was subsequently promoted to L-2 Grade in November,1989. In order to enable him to attend the practice for International Steel Boxing Championship, his duty hours were relaxed by the employer for the period from 10.08.1990 to 09.09.1990. A Departmental Proceeding was drawn up against him with charges on two counts, namely, one, for abscondance from working spot at about 9.15 A.M. till the end of the shift on 30.08.1990 and, secondly, for theft of a piece of nonferrous casting metal weighing 46 kgs having approximate value of about Rs.2,760/- in the front dickey of his scooter amounting to contravention of clause-28 (vi) and (ii) of the standing orders. In the domestic enquiry, the Inquiring Officer exonerated the petitioner from the charge of abscondance from duty holding that the petitioner's duty hours was relaxed as he was required to practice in the stadium daily from 6.00 A.M. to 11.00 A.M in order to participate in the International Steel Boxing Championship. However, the Inquiring Officer found the other charge of committing theft of a nonferrous casting metal proved. On the basis of such enquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed the order of removal of the petitioner from service. Since the petitioner was a concerned workman in pending I.D. Case No.25 of 1990, the employer filed application under Section 33 (2)(b) of the I.D. Act before the Industrial Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar for approval of the removal order and the application was registered as Industrial Misc. Case No. 28 of 1992.

(3.) The plea of the petitioner-workman before the Industrial Tribunal was that the domestic enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles of nature justice; that the charge against him is based on conjecture and surmises; that he was not given opportunity of going through the document relied upon by the management during the enquiry; and that the subject matter of theft has not been proved by any witness to be the property of the employer-company.