EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF CHASNALLA COLLIERY OF TISCO STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. Vs. THEIR WORKMEN TARKESHWAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned single Judge in writ petition bearing W.P.(L) No. 222 of 2009 vide order dated 2nd February, 2009. The writ petition preferred by this appellant was dismissed and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent was working as a Senior Time-Keeper in the year 1984 who has shown the presence of one Sri Yudhisthir Bauri, a Miner Loader for the period running from 2nd April, 1984 to 10th April, 1984 as well as on 16th April, 1984 in the Attendance Register to be maintained by the respondent, whereas, on checking it was found that the said worker was absent from the duty and he did not go underground to perform his job. Again it has been pointed out by the counsel for the appellant that as per Munshi's report the said workman had not gone to underground, but, his presence was shown and he got the wages. Therefore, charge-sheet was issued upon the workman in the month of September/ November, 1984. An inquiry was conducted and inquiry report was given on 9th October, 1986 and ultimately the workman was dismissed on 21st April, 1993 for which a Reference Case No. 23 of 1999 was instituted under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Industrial Tribunal No.1 at Dhanbad. It has further been submitted by counsel for the appellant that inquiry was held legally by the order of the Tribunal as stated in paragraph No. 5 of the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal No.1 dated 14th July, 2008. Now, the question before the Tribunal was about the quantum of punishment. It has further been submitted that the punishment inflicted upon the respondent-workman cannot be said to be shockingly or disproportionate nor the same was unreasonably excessive.

(3.) When the matter is called out none appears on behalf of respondent.