(1.) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a charge was levelled against the respondent-workman that 15 passengers were found without tickets at the time of carrying out the inspection of the bus wherein respondentworkman was deputed as Conductor. Learned counsel submits that a domestic inquiry was conducted against the respondent-workman wherein Enquiry Officer found the charge levelled against the respondent-workman proved. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and while granting opportunity of hearing to the respondent-workman terminated the services of the respondent-workman vide order dtd. 13/12/1999. The petitioner-department thereafter moved an application under Sec. 33(2)(b)of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Industrial Tribunal seeking the approval of the termination order dtd. 13/12/1999. Learned counsel submits that the Industrial Tribunal has committed an error in quashing the order of punishment dtd. 13/12/1999 on the technical count that no notice of dis-agreement was given to the respondent-workman. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal vide order dtd. 16/8/2005 has not decided the matter on its merits, hence interference of this Court is warranted.
(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondentworkman opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that charges were not found to be proved against the workman and without issuing any notice of disagreement the punishment order was passed against the workman. Counsel submits that it is settled proposition of law that if after conducting enquiry the charges are not found to be proved then the disciplinary authority is duty bound to issue a notice of disagreement before passing the order of punishment. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the following judgment:-