ACHYUT CH DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This proceeding is directed against and arises out of an award dated 24.9.91, passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference No. 6 (c) of 1988. In the aforesaid case, the following industrial dispute was referred :

(2.) Parties appeared,submitted their written statement. The Management averred in the written istatement that the workman was appointed in the year 1976 who joined the service of the Corporation accepting the terms and conditions of Service on 30.6.76. He was transferred on 5.4.83, to the Quarry of the Corporation at Delai Parbat. The workman did not comply with the order of transfer and refused to join the new place of posting and left the factory premises and went home. The workman thereafter submitted a representation to cancel his transfer. The Management instituted a departmental proceeding for unauthorised, absence from his duty and also for violation of lawful order of the Management. The Management accepted the Report of the Enquiry officer and dismissed the workman from service as per the provisions of the Standing order. The workman pleaded that in the year 1977, he was transferred to Delai Parbat Quarry from Bokajan factory.While serving in the qnarry, he suffered from Malaria and had to undergo medical treatment on many occasions. He was thereafter transferred in the year 1979 to Bokajan factory and posted at the Rail Gate of the Factory. Antisocial elements used to threaten him regularly for which he requested to management to post another Watchman alogwith him at the rail gate. But instead of acceding to his request, the management transferred him to the Quarry site.The workman stated that while he was serving at the rail gate, the workman suffered from eye trouble and had to undergo medical treatment at Dimapur from 10.4.83 to 15.4.83.The workman also denied that he was given full opportunity to defend his case. The workman alleged that he was dismissed from service by adopting unfair labour practice. The Management adduced three witnesses and exhibited some documents. The workmen also examined himself and exhibited some documents. According to the Management, the transfer was made for administrative exigencies and since the workman refused to comply with the transfer order, the management in order to enforce discipline amongst its workman, initiated proceeding against the workman and on accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer, dismissed, him from service. The Tribunal, on examination of the materials on record, evidence adduced and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, found that the workman failed to comply with the transfer order of the Management and remained absent from duty and Held that misconduct was proved against the workman.

(3.) Mr. P. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/workman, submitted that the Tribunal fell into serious error in accepting the plea of the Management holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct. Mr. Talukdar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the plea taken by the Management, submitted that the misconduct was next proved. The Tribunal while coming to the conclusion, relied on the evidence of the witnesses including the exhibits proved by both the parties. In its finding, the learned Tribunal did not indicate as to whether the domestic enquiry was fair and reasonable.