MATUKDHARI PRASAD Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case was taken up through Video Conferencing and heard at length on various dates, lastly on 24/9/2020 and Judgment was reserved and the same is being pronounced today. Concerned lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding which has been held through Video Conferencing and there is no complaint in respect to audio and video clarity and quality and after hearing at length, the matter is being disposed of finally. PRAYER OF THE PETITIONER

(2.) Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Award dtd. 11/5/2009, passed by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Reference No. 32 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the terms of reference sought to have been answered against the petitioner. CASE OF THE PETITIONER

(3.) The factual exposition as has been stated in the writ petition is that services of the petitioner was regularized to the post of General Mazdoor, Category-I in or about the year 1973 in Sarubera Colliery. Thereafter, petitioner was promoted to Class-Ill post. On 13/6/1988, a Charge Sheet was issued against the petitioner under the signature of Colliery Manager of Sarubera Colliery through registered post upon an allegation that he was absenting himself from duty without any permission/ sanctioned leave from the competent authority since 9/5/2008 till that date. On 25/6/1988, petitioner submitted his explanations deying and disputing the allegations contained in the charge sheet issued against him. Thereafter, petitioner was never communicated regarding the progress of enquiry or about the proceeding in respect thereof nor was he provided copy of the proceeding or copy of the enquiry report. Petitioner reported for the duties with medical certificates in support of his sickness and he was allowed to join the duties on 2/2/1989. The medical certificates for the periods from 9/5/1988 to 12/10/1988 was accepted by the Medical board on 21/5/1989. Thus, the allegations of unauthorized absence from the duty either from 9/5/1988 or 19/5/1988 or from any subsequent dates, does not arise.