K.M. Thaker, J.

Heard Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Shukla, learned advocate for the respondent.

2. By present petition, the original claimant has challenged award dated 317.2013 passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (CGITA) No.100 of 2004 [Old Reference (ITC) No.73 of 1998] whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the reference.

3. So far as factual backdrop is concerned, it has emerged from the record and from rival submissions that present petitioner was employed by present respondent. The petitioner worked with the respondent as Engineering Assistant since December 1978. In April 1995, the respondent issued a show-cause notice with regard to certain misconduct allegedly committed by present petitioner. According to the petitioner, the allegations were false and the notice was issued to victimise him. The petitioner submitted reply to the said notice which was not found satisfactory. Therefore, the respondent issued a charge-sheet dated 8.6.1995. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet. Thereupon, the respondent decided to conduct departmental enquiry. According to the petitioner, sufficient opportunity of hearing and defence was not granted during the enquiry proceeding. Upon conclusion of the enquiry, the officer, who conducted the enquiry, submitted his findings and report. The Disciplinary Authority considered the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer.

Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority took into account the gravity of misconduct, past service record and the material obtaining on record of the enquiry and decided to terminate the service of the petitioner. Therefore, the order dated 5.11.1996 cam to be passed whereby the respondent terminated service of the petitioner.

3.1 The petitioner raised industrial dispute. Appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication to learned Tribunal, Ahmedabad vide order dated 27.8.1998. The learned Tribunal registered the dispute as Reference (ITC) No.73 of 1998.

3.2 Before the learned Tribunal, the petitioner herein filed statement of claim. The summary of statement of claim is recorded in the award, which reads thus :

"3. The case of the 2nd party workman as per statement of claim, shortly stated, is that he joined as Engg. Assistant on 18.12.1978 in the service of the corporation and was performing his duty faithfully and diligently but in spite of that officers of the corporation were harassing him and that he was never issued any notice or warning in the past. But a show cause notice dated 25.04.1995 was wrongly issued to him containing false allegation and was served upon him and he replied to show cause notice but even then wrong charge sheet was issued to victimise him, he was not provided with documents as demanded. He was not given fair chance to defend at the enquiry by not allowing the Advocate as defence counsel in the enquiry. The corporation had taken one sided attitude with a view to award punishment. Sufficient opportunity was not granted and illegal enquiry was conducted, enquiry officer was in collusion with management and there was preplanned conspiracy against him. The finding of enquiry officer is baseless and perversed. Even after dismissal he (2nd party) has not been given his dues. On these scores prayer is made to set aside the order of dismissal dated 18.11.1996 and to reinstate him with full back ages and with litigation cost of Rs. 5000/- and any other relief to which he is found entitled."

3.3 Present respondent company filed its reply in response to the said statement of claim. The summary of company's reply is recorded by the learned Tribunal in paragraph No.4 of the award, which reads thus:

"4. As against this case of the corporation (1st party) is that the 2nd party Shri V.H. Rawal, joined the service of the corporation as an Engineering Assistant on 18.12.1978 at its Kandla installation and he subsequently sought for transfer to Ahmedabad