Respondent workman, hereinafter called the respondent, was dismissed from service by the appellant in the year 1996 after holding a domestic enquiry.
The learned Single Judge upheld the award made by the Industrial Tribunal.
Accordingly, it recorded a finding that the termination of the respondent in pursuance to the enquiry was number proper and valid.
The Tribunal also observed that the management had number pleaded in the written statement that it be allowed to lead evidence to justify the termination of the respondent in case the enquiry was found to be improper and invalid.
Aggrieved against the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court which came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge.
No prayer was made before the Industrial Tribunal to lead evidence to prove the charges against the respondent.
The point that the impugned award of the Tribunal be set aside and the case be remitted back to the Tribunal for passing a fresh award after affording an opportunity to the management to lead evidence to prove the charges against the respondent was number argued before the Single Judge.
O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NO.1242 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP C No.6642 of 2006 Leave granted.
Aggrieved against the order of the learned Single Judge, appellant filed Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench which has been dismissed by the impugned order.
Whether the termination of services of Sh.
The companypetent authority made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal to the following effect and the same was registered as ID No.68/96.
The Tribunal directed reinstatement of the respondent with full back wages and companytinuity of service.
Ram Rattan Sharma by the management is illegal and or unjustified and if so to what relief is he entitled and what direction are necessary in this respect?
Respondent raised an industrial dispute.
The Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal vide its award dated 1st February, 2003 held that the enquiry was vitiated inasmuch as the enquiry officer was the standing companynsel for the appellant and had appeared for the management in these proceedings which shows that he was bias.
Enquiry was held by one Mr. Ramesh Nagpal, who was the standing companynsel for the management and also appeared for the management in the present proceedings.
Management is in appeal.
