EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF LODNA AREA NO X OF B C C L Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO 1 DHANBAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. M.K. Laik, learned counsel for the Respondents.

(2.) According to the Respondent No. 2 the inquiry was conducted on 15/04/1983 and it was completed on 26/09/1983. Thereafter, the management remained absolutely silent and dormant and suddenly on September 18/19, 1989 it proceeded to dismiss the concerned workman for the service. Paragraph 10 of the Award clearly shows that the concerned workman had committed some mistakes in calculation and therefore, at paragraph 11 the learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that the concerned workman was neither guilty of theft nor of fraud nor was dishonest in connection with the Company's business or property and that there was no evidence on record to show that he had done anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to himself or wrongful loss to his employer. The learned Tribunal also came to the conclusion that there was no evidence on record to prove that the concerned workman had intention to deceive the employer. After having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the learned Tribunal observed:

(3.) This Court does not find any perversity or illegality, with the award nor should this Court substitute itself and give a fresh Award. Reference for such proposition may be made to the case of Jitendra Singh Rathor v. Shri Baidyanath Ayun>ed Bhawan Ltd. reported in AIR 1984 S'C 976 : 1984 (3) SCC 5 : 1984-II-LLJ-10 and Indian Overseas Bank v. I. O. B. Staff Canteen Workers Union reported in AIR 2000 SC 1508 : 2000 (4) SCC 2?5 : 2000-I-LLJ-1618.