The dismissal of the petitioner was upheld as legal and justified, with the court affirming the supervisory nature of its review under Article 227, emphasizing the lack of procedural errors in the Tribunal's decision.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing and setting aside the award dated 13.04.2015 passed by The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 at Dhanbad in Reference No. 19/2000 whereby it has been held that the order of dismissal of the petitioner from the services of CCL with effect from 08.02.1999 is quite legal and justified and that the workman/petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that in the year 1994, the respondents requisitioned list of eligible candidates from Ranchi and Ramgarh Employment Exchanges for appointment on the post of Mechanical Fitter in Category-I, having requisite qualification of ITI. The petitioner had completed his ITI course in Fitter Trade in the session 1984-86 and the respondents having found him eligible issued letter dated 05.01.1995 to appear in written test to be held on 12.02.1995 for selection on the aforesaid post. Thereafter the respondent authorities issued letter No. 809 dated 13.10.1995, whereby the petitioner was offered appointment as Trainee Category-l (ITI) and in pursuance thereof, he submitted his joining on the said post on 31.10.1995. After appointment, the petitioner was sent for training at Central Excavation Training Institute (CETI), Barkakana, where he successfully completed the training. Further, he was posted at Rajrappa Washery Project of Central Coalfields Limited vide letter under Ref. No. 7123 dated 05.02.1997. The petitioner was subsequently issued order of Suspension-cum-Charge-sheet vide letter No. 6404 dated 21/22.03.1998, alleging inter alia that he had fraudulently obtained employment under Land Looser Scheme of Piparwar Area, CCL, claiming himself as the dependent (nephew) of the land owner and he was directed to submit his reply within seven days of receipt of the aforesaid letter. The petitioner submitted his reply on 03.06.1968 and the Project Officer, Rajrappa Washery Project-the respondent no. 2 initiated an enquiry against him vide memo No. 170, dated 10.04.1998. Pursuant to the submission of enquiry report by the enquiry officer, the respondent no. 2 vide order as contained in memo No. 5335 dated 08.02.1999 dismissed the petitioner from service of Central Coalfields Limited, Rajrappa Washery Project with immediate effect. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Ministry of Labour, Government of India under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the same was referred for adjudication before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad vide Reference No. 19/2000. The petitioner filed his written statement and rejoinder as well as led evidences in support of his claim that he was not appointed against Land Looser Scheme, rather was appointed following due procedure of selection and that mentioning of certain plots with respect to the land in his appointment letter as well as his relationship with the land owner was an error committed by the respondents themselves. The petitioner also led his evidences both documentary as well as oral, however, learned Tribunal after conclusion of evidences and submission of written notes by the petitioner erroneously passed the award dated 13.04.2015 holding that the order of dismissal of the petitioner was quite legal and justified and that the petitioner was not entitled for any relief.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on bare perusal of the evidences, pleadings filed by the workman/ petitioner, it would categorically transpire that mentioning of details of plots with respect to land etc. in the appointment letter of the petitioner was an error committed by the concerned authority, whereas the petitioner was appointed pursuant to due selection process through written test after inviting names of eligible candidates from the Employment Exchanges, Ranchi and Ramgarh. It is further submitted that while rejecting the claim of workman