IMPORTANT POINT
The management must seek leave of the court/tribunal in the written statement itself to lead additional evidence to support its action in the alternative and without prejudice to its rights and contentions.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

1. The instant civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-

"i) issue writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature therefore calling for the record of the proceedings and award Award dated 03.01.2017 passed by Ld. CGIT in case bearing I.D. No. 153/2012, and quash the entire proceedings and impugned award there in;

ii) in the alternative the matter may be remanded back to the Ld. CGIT to give permission to the petitioner for leading evidence before it and then passed the award; iii) pass such other and further orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

2. The relevant facts necessary for the adjudication of the instant petition are reproduced herein below:

a) The respondent herein ("respondent workman" hereinafter) was appointed as a 'Clerk' in the year 1987, in the petitioner entity, i.e., the Regional Manager Central Bank of India ("petitioner Bank" hereinafter). While working as CTO in Branch Office Press Area, Delhi, the respondent workman was issued a charge-sheet bearing No. ROB/HRD/DAP-MISC/2007-08/831 dated 2nd February, 2008 by the petitioner Bank, in terms of the allegation of misappropriation of public funds amounting to Rs.4139/- against the respondent workman.

b) Subsequently, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the charges leveled against the respondent workman. The Inquiry Officer initiated the inquiry against the respondent workman and submitted the report dated 14th June, 2008, wherein, all the charges levelled against the respondent workman were fully established. Pursuant to the above, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 19th September, 2009, awarded a penalty of dismissal to the respondent workman.

c) Thereafter, the respondent workman filed an appeal dated 3rd November, 2008, before the Appellate Authority which was dismissed vide order dated 18th March, 2009, thereby, confirming the aforementioned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

d) After his dismissal, the respondent workman raised an Industrial Dispute and pursuant to which the Ministry of Labour and Employment vide dated 18th October, 2012, bearing No.L- 12012/61/2012-IR(B-11) under Clause (d) of sub-Section 1 and sub- Section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("I.D Act" hereinafter), referred the dispute for adjudication before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Karkardooma Courts Complex, Delhi ("learned Tribunal" hereinafter) in the following terms.:-

"Whether the action of the Management of Central Bank of India in imposing the punishment of dismissal on Shri Kunwar Pal Singh Ex. Clerk vide order dated 19.09.2008 is legal and justified? What relief the concerned workman is entitled to."

e) Thereafter, the respondent workman on 3rd December, 2012, filed his statement of claim before the learned Tribunal and the petitioner Bank filed its written statement to the claim petition on 1st February, 2013.

f) After completion of pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed three issues on 1st February, 2013, wherein, the issue No.1 was treated as the preliminary issue i.e. 'whether the inquiry conducted by the Management was just, fair and proper?'

g) The learned Tribunal vide order dated 29th February, 2014, decided the preliminary issue against the petitioner Bank and in favour of the respondent workman.

h) Subsequently, the petitioner Bank filed an application dated 2nd March, 2016, seeking permission of the learned Tribunal to adduce fresh evidence and prove the alleged misconduct of the workman on merits and the same was contested by the respondent.

i) The learned Tribunal vide order dated 31st November, 2016, dismissed the aforementioned application and thereafter, passed the impugned award dated 3rd January, 2017, thereby, directing the petitioner Bank to reinstate the respon