The court clarified that judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited, focusing on procedural fairness and legality, thereby confirming the legality of dismissal for unauthorized absenteeism.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The writ application has been preferred challenging the order of reference dated 30th May, 2005 and the impugned award dated 31st May, 2010 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal – cum-Labour Court, Asansol Reference No. 45 of 2005 on 31.05.2010.

2. The petitioner Eastern Coalfields Limited has preferred the present writ application stating that the respondent No. 1 was a permanent employee of the petitioner company as an Under Ground Loader (154583 ) at the Dhemomain Colliery under Sodepur Area.

3. The respondent no.1 remained in unauthorized absenteeism from 28^th February, 1997 till the date of issuance of the charge sheet i.e. 9^th October, 1998. Consequently a charge sheet bearing No. DMC/C-6/22/98/684 dated 9^th October, 1998 was issued. The respondent no. 1 was in the habit of unauthorized absenteeism on earlier occasions also. His attendance in the year 1995 was 159 days and in the year 1996 was 154 days.

4. The respondent no. 1 did not give any reply to the aforesaid charge sheet and consequently it was decided to hold an enquiry to enquire into the charges levelled against the respondent no. 1 in the charge sheet dated 9th October, 1998.

5. Despite 3 notices being sent to the respondent no. 1 under registered post with A/D at his home address to participate in the Enquiry proceedings, the Respondent No. 1 neither appeared in the enquiry nor did he gave any reply to the said notices . Consequently the Enquiry officer was left with no other alternative but to hold the enquiry ex-parte.

6. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the respondent no. 1 was guilty of the charges that were levelled against him in the charge sheet dated 9^th October, 1995.

7. The Chief General Manager, Sodepur Area of the petitioner Company who was the Disciplinary Authority in relation of the Respondent No. 1 concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and ordered for dismissal of the respondent no. 1 from service as would be evident from the letter dated 26th April, 1999.

8. Long after the said order of dismissal, the respondent No. 2 on behalf of the respondent No. 1 raised a purported industrial dispute before the conciliatory machinery of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour. The conciliation having failed, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, the respondent No. 4 herein by an order No. L-22012/101/2004/IR(CM-II) dated 30th May, 2005 referred the following dispute for adjudication by the respondent No. 3:-

“Whether the action of the management of Dhemomain Colliery of Sodepur Area of ECL in dismissing Sri Uttam Bouri, Under Ground Loader (UM No. 154583) is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the said workman concerned entitled?”

9. The petitioner company was not served with any notice from the tribunal for appearance before the tribunal. The petitioner company some time in September, 2010 got information that an ex parte award has been passed by the tribunal on 31st May, 2010.

10. The said ex parte award has been challenged before this Court. The relevant part of the award /order under is reproduced below:-

“…………The management preferred not to contest the claims of workman. At the fag-end of the case the learned counsel for the management, Sri P.K.Goswami simply made his appearance on 2.2.10 and filed hazira without any authority of the management. No pleading was filed by the management.

The union is said to have filed an affidavit but same is ignored not being sworn an affidavit before any competent authority. However, as discussed above, the claim of the workman that being prevented by sickness he could not join duties and that he was refused to join when he reported for duties have not join duties and that he was refused to join when he reported for duties have not been refuted. On a look to the enquiry proceeding papers it appears that enquiry has been held in absence of the workman and there is no sufficient proof that he failed to participate despite