GANPAT RAI AGGARWAL; NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, LUDHIANA Vs. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 806 of 2004 bearing caption 'Ganpat Rai Aggarwal v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh and another' as well as Civil Writ Petition No. 8814 of 2003 titled as 'The New India Assurance Company Limited, Ludhiana v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh and another' as both these writs have arisen out of the impugned award dated 22.1.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh.

(2.) The facts are garnered from Civil Writ Petition No. 806. Ganpat Rai Aggarwal (hereinafter to be referred as 'the workman') joined the office of The New India Assurance Company Limited respondent (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Company') as Assistant (Clerical) on 27.12.1988. He was served with a charge-sheet on the basis of allegations imputations that on 22.2.1994 at 10:00 a.m. during office hours, he quarreled up with Krishan Kumar, sub-staff. When Ramesh Chand, Senior Assistant tried to intervene the matter and to dissuade the workman, the latter assaulted and slapped him. The workman misbehaved with Mrs. Surekha Gupta one of the staff members and used abusive, indecent and unparliamentary language. He submitted his reply refuting the allegations. He, in fact, was suffering from a disease "Mania" and was not in his senses. The Inquiry Officer without going through the detailed reply and without affording an opportunity of being heard to the workman, submitted his report holding him guilty of the charges. The punishing authority without issuing any show cause notice before imposing the punishment of removal and without affording opportunity of personal hearing accepted the inquiry report and passed the order dated 4.1.1995 imposing the punishment of removal from service against the workman whose appeal has also been dismissed. The workman raised industrial dispute. The following issue was framed :

(3.) Feeling aggrieved with this award, the workman has filed the above- mentioned petition for his reinstatement whereas the company feeling dissatisfied therewith has filed the afore-mentioned petition for setting aside the award.