1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 535 OF 2007. Shri Govind Gawas R/o. Vagon, Quirlapale, Dabal, Sanguem- Goa. ..... Petitioners. Versus 1) M/s. Sesa Goa Limited Sesa Ghor, 20- EDC Complex, Patto, Panaji, Goa. 2) Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Shram Raksha Bhavan, Shivsrushthi Road, Opp. Priyadarshani, Estern Express Highway, Sion- Mumbai 400022. ..... Respondents. Mr. Hrudaynath Shirodkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Coram :- S. A. BOBDE, J. Date : - 17th April, 2008. ORAL ORDER : 1. The petitioner workman has challenged the award of Central Government Industrial Tribunal dated 25th September, 2006 by which the Industrial Tribunal has at different stages held that the misconduct against the petitioner has been properly proved and that the punishment imposed against him is not shockingly disproportionate. The petitioner was appointed as a driver of heavy vehicle in B category. 2 While working as such he was charged with being dishonest in connection with the business of the property of the Company, gross negligence, sleeping while on duty, idling during working hours and an enquiry was conducted and he was found guilty of the charges. He was then served a dismissal order dated 30th May 1994. He preferred an appeal to the Managing Director which was dismissed. 2. Initially, the petitioner challenged the enquiry itself and the impartiality by the Enquiry Officer. There was no substance in the petitioner's allegation and the Presiding Officer has held (in Award in Part I dated 29.10.1999) that the enquiry against the workman is fair and proper and in accordance with the principles of the natural justice. 3. Subsequently the Industrial Tribunal considered the question of an appropriateness of the punishment. The Tribunal found, relying on several judgments that this was not a fit case for holding that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate. The Tribunal observed that the workman has been found guilty of the charges and no special reason have been tendered by the workman as to why he should be reinstated with back wages. The Tribunal held that the gravity of charge of misconduct is not diluted with any special circumstance. The Tribunal has specifically observed that this cannot be said to be an act of minor misconduct and having regard to past record of the petitioner no interference was found to be warranted. In 3 the past, the petitioner was found to have been punished for negligent driving under the influence of Alcohol when he is said to have damaged the vehicle and the wall. He was also warned for unauthorised act of attending the meeting while on duty and for irregular attendance. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of this Court and found that the punishment of dismissal was just and proper in the case of negligent drivers. The order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any error of law apparent on the face of record. There is no merit in this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. S. A. BOBDE, J. SMA