AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Kanungo, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of the workman and submits, impugned is award dated 19th November, 2013. His client was a workman and removed from service on allegation of unauthorized absence from duty. He places facts of the case recited in impugned award, from paragraph 3 therein. Mr. Nayak, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.1. while Mr. Patnaik, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party nos.2 and 3.
We are not inclined to hear opposite party no.1 since that would amount to justification of the award. We have not called upon opposite party nos.2 and 3 to make any submission.
Perused impugned award. There is finding that the disciplinary proceeding was conducted in a manner of fair. The Labour Court found, during inquiry, for first six sittings petitioner did not attend nor informed reasons for his absence. He had admitted the charges leveled against him in the inquiry. Explanation submitted by him was examined but found not to have any substance nor merit. No appeal was filed.
We enquired of Mr. Kanungo for documentary evidence regarding ailment suffered by petitioner. Nothing could be shown.
We do not find any reason to interfere with impugned award.
Mr. Kanungo’s submission is recorded that petitioner has various dues outstanding from the management. In event such is so, the management will expeditiously pay out the same.
The writ petition is disposed of.
........................................................