[2026:RJ-JP:539] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4635/2002 Bank Of Baroda-Through Deputy General Manager, Anand Bhawan, IV floor, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Bank Of Baroda Staff Union, Through its General Secretary, Power House Road, Kabir Marg, Jaipur. 2. The Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Shyam Nagar, Jiapur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rupin Kala, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Kashyap, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 08/01/2026 1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of award dated 08.05.2001 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jaipur as well as order dated 30.10.2001 passed by the Tribunal, whereby application for recalling/reviewing filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of committing grave misconduct, domestic enquiry was conducted against the respondent-workman where he was served with charge-sheet containing specific charges and was given opportunity to file reply. Thereafter, Enquiry Officer was appointed, he conducted enquiry after giving complete opportunity of defending the delinquent workman. After concluding the enquiry, [2026:RJ-JP:539] (2 of 5) [CW-4635/2002] the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of penalty of stoppage of 6 grade increments with cumulative effects as well as withdrawal of special allowance. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent-workman through trade union initiated the industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, however, on account of there being no consensus between the parties, failure report was submitted and ultimately dispute was referred to the CGIT, Jaipur where terms of reference were as to whether action of management of Bank of Baroda, Jaipur in imposing the punishment vide order dated 09.12.1993 upon the workman were justified or not; and if not what relief the workman was entitled to. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statement of claim submitted by the workman was opposed by the petitioner-Bank and due evidence was also led, however, on account of change of branches, the record of proceedings of enquiry was not available at the relevant time with the petitioner, therefore, it could not be produced before the Tribunal. Only on account of not submitting such record, the enquiry was found to be unfair and award dated 08.05.2001 was passed whereby reference was answered in favour of the workman and order of punishment dated 09.12.1993 was quashed and set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after passing of the award, the record of enquiry was traced by the Officer of the Bank, thereafter, one application for recalling/reviewing was filed before the Tribunal, however, same has also been dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2001, only on account of the reason that the Tribunal does not possess any power to recall/review its own award. [2026:RJ-JP:539] (3 of 5) [CW-4635/2002] 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that complete opportunity of leading proper evidence and placing the entire record of enquiry was not granted to the petitioner and had the record been available with the Tribunal at the relevant time, the finding with regard to unfairness of enquiry would not have come. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that award has not been passed by learned Tribunal on merits, therefore, there was no impediment in the way of learned CGIT in recalling it, thus, learned Tribunal has committed serious error of law and jurisdiction in passing the order dated 30.10.2001 and in not recalling the award dated 08.05.2001. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Union opposed the writ petition and supported the impugned award as well as order. It was submitted that the reference was made by the appropriate Government to learned Tribunal vide notification dated 29.02.2000 and thereafter, there was ample opportunity available to the petitioner-Bank for placing all the documents on record. It is submitted that for the purpose of examining the fairness of the enquiry, the record/proceedings of the enquiry is a material document and when the petitioner employee has failed to place the same on record, learned Tribunal has committed no mistake in deciding the question of fairness against the petitioner- Bank. It is submitted that as to whether fair and complete opportunity of hearing and defence was afforded to the workman or not, can be decided only on the basis of proceedings of enquiry, which was admittedly not produced by the petitioner-Bank at the relevant time before the Tribunal. [2026:RJ-JP:539] (4 of 5) [CW-4635/2002] 8. Learned counsel submits that it cannot be said that the award dated 30.10.2001 was passed by learned Tribunal on technical grounds and not on merits. He submits that production of particular relevant document is also a question to be adjudicated on merits and on account of non production of relevant material on record, when the question of fairness has been properly adjudicated, it can be said that the award has been passed on merits. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent-Union submits that once the award has been passed, there is no provision for recalling/reviewing the award, therefore, learned Tribunal has also not committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting the application for recalling/reviewing the award vide order dated 30.10.2001. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent-workman would also argue that the scope of writ petition against award/order of the Tribunal is extremely limited and only in the cases where there is manifest and apparent illegality or perversity, any interference can be made by this Court but the petitioner has utterly failed to point out any such illegality or perversity. Hence, prayer was made to dismiss the writ petition filed by the petitioner. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. This Court examined the award dated 08.05.2001, which reveals that learned Tribunal granted equal opportunity to both sides for producing documents and it is not case of the petitioner that opportunity of producing record was not granted to the petitioner. Both the parties were heard on the question of fairness of the enquiry on the basis of material available on [2026:RJ-JP:539] (5 of 5) [CW-4635/2002] record. In order to examine whether the enquiry conducted by the employer was fair or not and whether proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to him or not, record of proceedings of enquiry was an essential and indispensable document and since, it was not produced, after examining the material available on record, learned Tribunal has rightly drawn adverse inference against the petitioner and on the basis of that no error whatsoever has been committed in quashing the order of punishment. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also utterly failed to point out any provision whatsoever so as to unable the Tribunal in recalling/reviewing the award. Hence, for want of any specific power, learned Tribunal has committed no mistake in passing the order dated 30.10.2001. 14. In writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, any interference can be made by this Court where the petitioner is able to show any manifest illegality or perversity in the award/order passed by learned Tribunal, however, in the instant case, petitioner is unable to establish any such case of jurisdictional error, perversity or illegality, hence, no interference is called for. 15. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J Jatin /9