The petitioner, by way of this petition, has challenged the judgement and award dated 11.11.2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 174 of 1993 whereby the Tribunal allowed the Reference and quashed and set aside the punishment orders passed by the authority. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent workman was working as a driver. When he was discharging his duty as a driver at Kadi Depot, he misbehaved with the Depot Manager and destroyed the duty list. Charge sheet was issued to the respondent workman and after holding Departmental Inquiry, he was dismissed from service by order dated 23.12.1988.
3. Against the order of dismissal, the respondent workman filed first appeal before the competent authority. The competent authority partly allowed the appeal and directed to reinstate the respondent workman in service. He was put seven stages below from the basic pay. The said order of the competent authority was challenged in second appeal by the respondent. The second appellate authority modified the order of first appellate authority by putting the respondent workman only two stages below the basic pay.
4. The respondent workman filed Reference before the Industrial Tribunal stating that the orders of punishment passed by the authority are illegal and required to be set aside.
5. The petitioner resisted the Reference by filing reply. It is stated that the respondent workman misbehaved with the Depot Manager and destroyed the duty list. Thus, his Reference is required to be rejected.
6. The Industrial Tribunal considered the material on record. It observed that no eye witness was examined. In the departmental enquiry, charge is not proved. Therefore, the Tribunal passed the award as aforesaid. Hence the petitioner is before this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Tribunal has passed the award without considering the submissions of the petitioner. It has also not taken into consideration the defaults committed by the respondent workman. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is required to be quashed and set aside.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that no eye witness is examined. In the departmental inquiry, the charge of the respondent workman is proved. In that view of the matter, the view taken by the Tribunal is just and proper. No interference is called for by this Court. The petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (pkn)