JUDGMENT 1. - The matter is placed on the application filed by the contesting respondent, under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for recalling of the order dated 23rd of August, 2004. To avoid duplicity of arguments in the matter I consider it in the larger interest of the parties to hear the matter on merits and decide it finally. Thus, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the writ petition. 3. In the writ petition the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 16th of January, 2001 of the learned Judge, Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, the Tribunal") in IT Case No. 403/93, thereunder the learned Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act, 1947'). 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the contesting respondent No. 1 Shri Sukhram Choudhary (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the respondent workman') is the employee of the petitioner, he was served with a charge-sheet Annexure-1 for the misconduct alleged to have been committed by him as incorporated therein. After holding the enquiry the petitioner under the order dated 15th of December, 1993 dismissed the respondent workman. For approval of the order dated 15th of December, 1993 the petitioner filed the application aforesaid before the Tribunal which came to be dismissed under the impugned judgment and that is how the petitioner is before this court by the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. From the document Annexure-I, the charge-sheet, I find that for the incidence of 23rd of January, 1990 the First Information Report was lodged by one Bhanwar Singh Naruka, Assistant Traffic Inspector, Deedwana, at the Police Station Deedwana. It is further stated in the charge-sheet that the S.H.O. Police Station, Deedwana. took the respondent workman for his medical examination. In the medical examination he was found intoxicated. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent workman submitted that no F.I.R. was lodged against the respondent workman. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on being put by the court, has not denied this fact. That apart do not find any material on the record that the FIR of the incidence aforesaid was lodged against the respondent workman. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent workman submitted that no F.I.R. was lodged against the respondent workman. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on being put by the court, has not denied this fact. That apart do not find any material on the record that the FIR of the incidence aforesaid was lodged against the respondent workman. Thus, in the absence of any material on the record to show that the FIR was filed against the respondent workman, I am satisfied that it was not a fair, reasonable and impartial charge-sheet. Possibility of manufacture of the charge-sheet cannot be ruled Out. 7. That apart it is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent workman was on duty. The learned Tribunal recorded a finding of fact that the FIR of the incidence was not lodged by Bhanwar Singh Naruka at the Police Station Deedwana. The independent witness Munwar Khan has not been examined in the enquiry. The 'Rojnaamcha' report of the Police Station, Deedwana, disproves the case of the Department. In the 'Rojnaamcha' report it is revealed that during patrolling the police party found a person intoxicated near a petrol-pump lying on the road. The medical examination report also does not support the case of the petitioner. 8. In the facts of this case the plea taken by the respondent workman that Bhanwar Singh Naruka was inimical to him, found force and false implication of the respondent workman by the said person in the matter and 1 consequence thereof initiation of departmental enquiry against him, cannot be ruled out. The enquiry was also not fair and impartial. Babu Lal, the defence witness, produced by the respondent workman, has not been considered. That apart the department representative has not cross-examined the respondent workman. The defence has been taken by the respondent workman that he was medically advised to take liquor in small quantity. The medical certificate to this effect has also been produced. On examination of the medical report the learned Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that Doctor has nowhere certified that the respondent workman was in intoxicated condition. 9. As there is no error apparent on the face of the judgment/award of the learned Tribunal, no interference therein is called for in the writ petition filed under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. 9. As there is no error apparent on the face of the judgment/award of the learned Tribunal, no interference therein is called for in the writ petition filed under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. In the result the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequent upon the dismissal of the writ petition, the stay application filed therewith does not survive and the same is also dismissed. The interim stay granted by the Court is vacated.Writ Petition dismissed. *******