NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. CHHOTU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner National Engineering Industries Limited, Khatipura Road, Jaipur, has approached this Court by way of present writ petition assailing the order dated November 26, 1996 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby its application filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the I.D. Act') seeking approval of removal of Respondent-workman Chhotu Ram, was rejected. Factual matrix of the case is that Petitioner filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act before Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, inter alia, with pleading that Respondent-workman Chhotu Ram was served with a charge-sheet on April 4, 1990 for remaining willfully absent from November 1st to 4th, 6th to 9th, 1989 on December 13th, 15th, 20th to 23rd and 27th to 30th, 1989 for whole of the January 1, 1990 on February 1st, 2nd, 12th to 16th, 19th to 24th and 26th to 28th, 1990 and on March 1st to 15th, 17, 19th to 24th and 25th, 1990. Earlier also he was given warning and on three occasions was placed under suspension on account of wilful absence respectively for the period of 4, 7 and 10 days. Wilful absence is described as misconduct as per Schedule D-2 of the Standing Orders.

(2.) Despite having received charge-sheet on April 15, 1990 Respondent-workman did not file any reply thereto. The factory management sent to him a notice dated April 19, 1990 fixing April 24, 1990 as the date on which proceedings of enquiry were to be held. Place where the enquiry proceeding was to be held was also indicated therein and it was also informed that enquiry officer had been appointed. The Respondent personally received such notice on April 22, 1990, but even then he did not appear in enquiry proceedings on April 24, 1990 The enquiry was ordered to proceed ex-parte against him and June 26, 1990 was fixed therefore. A separate notice was issued by registered post about the next date. Envelope containing notice was received unnerved with the remark that addressee was not found at the address. When Respondent-workman failed to appear before enquiry officer on June 26, 1990 ex-parte enquiry against him was concluded and enquiry officer submitted his report on June 27, 1990 wherein all the charges were found proved against him.

(3.) In the application filed by the Petitioner under Section 33(2)(b) it was submitted that domestic enquiry was held in fair and proper manner and, as per provisions of Clause (b) of Section 33(2) of the I.D. Act, Cheque No. 984244, representing one month's wages was sent to Respondent-workman by post, thus the payment was tendered. It was therefore prayed that removal of Respondent be approved.