Order By Court:In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the award dated 26th April, 2000 passed in Ref. Case no.44 of 1992 by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) No.1, Dhanbad. In the said award, learned Tribunal has held that the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief. 2. The brief fact of the case is that Ramesh Chandra, the concerned workman, had been working as Sr. P.A. at General Manager's Office, Kathara Area of M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd. He was dismissed by the General Manager, Kathara by his letter dated 20th/21st November, 1986. According to the concerned workman, he was not served with any charge sheet nor any enquiry was held against him and the punishment of dismissal was arbitrarily awarded without following the established procedure. The concerned workman claimed that at the relevant point of time he was suffering from bone T.B. He was undergoing treatment and continued on sick leave since December, 1984. No notice was served on him regarding any such charge nor he was informed about the proceeding and suddenly he was served with the dismissal order. A dispute was raised against the said order of dismissal, which was referred for adjudication to the CGIT, but the Tribunal upheld the order holding that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 3. The management, on the other hand, took defence stating, inter alia, that dispute was stale, as it was raised after six years from the date of dismissal. The charge sheet was issued long back and domestic enquiry was held with due notice to the concerned workman. But he did not turn up and did not take part in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer had no option but to proceed with the enquiry ex parte. The enquiry proceeded and on the basis of the material placed on record by the Management, the Enquiry Officer gave his finding. On the basis of the enquiry report, the concerned workman was found guilty of misconduct. Considering the gravity of misconduct, the petitioner was awarded punishment of dismissal from service. 4. Though the stand was taken by the Management that the charge sheet was issued and enquiry was held, no such document could be produced before the Tribunal. The Management was allowed to produce evidence in support of their defence. Considering the gravity of misconduct, the petitioner was awarded punishment of dismissal from service. 4. Though the stand was taken by the Management that the charge sheet was issued and enquiry was held, no such document could be produced before the Tribunal. The Management was allowed to produce evidence in support of their defence. Four witnesses were examined on their behalf, but even those witnesses could not prove that the charge sheet was served on the concerned workman and opportunity was given to him to defend his case. 5. Learned Tribunal, on conclusion of the case, observed that the Management claimed that domestic enquiry was held after issuing charge sheet to the concerned workman. The concerned workman did not participate in the enquiry and the enquiry proceeded ex parte and the concerned workman was held guilty on the basis of the proved charges, but the Management did not produce any such paper. The Management took a plea that either the papers were lost or were stolen by the concerned workman. 6. Though according to the Tribunal the Management failed to prove their claim that the charge sheet was issued and enquiry was held, the Tribunal took a contrary view holding that the concerned workman was unauthorisedly absent for a pretty long time and did not join the duty even after specific order, directing him to join and he did not cooperate in enquiry. He had not handed over the keys of the Almirah and drawer in which a large number of important papers were kept. That goes to show the negligence of the petitioner. He had also not produced any certificate/document to show that he was suffering from Bone T.B. Therefore, he was unauthorizedly absent from duty for a long time without any reasonable excuse. The Tribunal further held that the industrial dispute has been raised after lapse of six years and it would not be proper to award any relief specially when the concerned workman is not alive and none of his legal representatives came forward for substitution and pursuing the petitioner's claim before the Tribunal. 7. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, assailed the award on the ground that the punishment of dismissal has been awarded to the concerned workman without serving any charge sheet on him and without giving him opportunity to produce evidence and defend. 7. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, assailed the award on the ground that the punishment of dismissal has been awarded to the concerned workman without serving any charge sheet on him and without giving him opportunity to produce evidence and defend. There was no enquiry, even ex parte, as claimed by the Management. The Management failed to produce any chit of paper before the Tribunal in support of their said stand. He further submitted that the delay itself does not wash away the dispute between the workman and the Management. There was no delay in raising the dispute. However, there was delay in making reference by the concerned authority for which the concerned workman cannot be blamed. Since the order of dismissal is wholly illegal and void for not compliance of the principle of natural justice, the said eligibility cannot be ignored only on the ground that the industrial dispute was raised after six years. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case Mahavir Singh Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board & Ors. [ (1999)9 SCC 178 ] to fortify his submissions. He further submitted that after the death of the concerned workman, the dispute does not come to an end, if there is proper representation of the deceased through his legal heir. After the death of workman, the application was filed before the Tribunal for substitution of heirs and legal representatives on 5th August, 1994, but by order dated 25th November, 1994, learned Tribunal passed the order that since the dispute is raised and represented by the Union, there was no need of substitution of legal heirs. In view of the said order of the Tribunal itself, it was not proper for the Tribunal to hold that the relief cannot be granted to the concerned workman, as he is no more and no representatives have come up before the Tribunal to claim any relief. 8. Learned counsel submitted that though the learned Tribunal has held that no evidence could be brought by the Management in support of their claim that the enquiry was held by them, the Tribunal has committed grave error in holding the concerned workman guilty of misconduct. The findings of the Tribunal are perverse, arbitrary and illegal and the award is wholly unsustainable and is liable to be quashed. 9. Mr. The findings of the Tribunal are perverse, arbitrary and illegal and the award is wholly unsustainable and is liable to be quashed. 9. Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the Management, submitted that the learned Tribunal has considered all the relevant aspects and materials on record and has rightly come to the conclusion that the concerned workman was absent from duty and he had not handed over the charge of the file for a long time, which was in his possession. Learned Tribunal has further rightly held that since the dispute was referred after a lapse of six years, the claim of the concerned workman is stale. It has been submitted that since the workman is no more, even if the order of dismissal is quashed, no useful purpose will be served. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the relevant records, I find that the learned Tribunal has clearly held that the Management could not produce any paper to establish that the charge was framed and served on the concerned workman and a domestic enquiry was held, giving him due notice and opportunity to defend his case. Though the Management has claimed that the enquiry was proceeded, in absence of the concerned workman, ex parte, even the papers of ex parte enquiry were not produced before the learned Tribunal. The reason for not producing the documents was said to be “either lost or stolen by the concerned workman”. Learned Tribunal has recorded clear finding that the Management could not prove that the charge sheet was served and enquiry was held, but has come to an arbitrary finding without any material on record that the workman was absent for a pretty long time and even after specific order he did not join the duty and did not Court-operate with the Management in the enquiry. He further held that since the concerned workman was himself absent from duty and had not handed over the charge of papers/documents, the order of dismissal cannot be said to be unjustified. 11. It is well established that no person can be condemned unheard and no order prejudicially affecting a person can be passed by a public authority without affording him reasonable opportunity to defend himself and represent his cause. Reference may be made to a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indu Bhushan Dwivedi Vs. 11. It is well established that no person can be condemned unheard and no order prejudicially affecting a person can be passed by a public authority without affording him reasonable opportunity to defend himself and represent his cause. Reference may be made to a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indu Bhushan Dwivedi Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2010)11 SCC 278 . 12. In the instant case, the concerned workman has been awarded punishment of dismissal without following the said basic principle of natural justice. As held by learned Tribunal, no enquiry was held and no opportunity was given to the concerned workman to defend. 13. Since the right of equality is guaranteed to the Citizen by the Constitution of India, the allegation of breach of rule of natural justice has to be rebutted by the party against whom such allegation is made and that party has to establish that the principle of natural justice was properly followed and observed. 14. In the instant case, learned Tribunal has specifically held that the Management failed to prove that the charge against the concerned workman was served on him and that he was given opportunity to defend himself. Having held so, learned Tribunal has committed a serious error in holding that the petitioner was guilty of unauthorised absence. The said finding of learned Tribunal is not supported by any material and is perverse. It is also contradictory to its own finding that there was no proper evidence to establish the charge against the concerned workman. 15. Having found that basic principle of the natural justice has not been observed by the Management before awarding punishment of dismissal to the petitioner, I hold that plea of delay of six years in raising the dispute cannot turn the lable in their favour and an order being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India cannot be allowed to exist and operate. 16. The Apex Court in Mahavir Singh's case (Supra) has held that once the termination is held to be illegal, the reference could not be rejected on the ground that the dispute was raised belatedly after six years from the date of termination. 17. 16. The Apex Court in Mahavir Singh's case (Supra) has held that once the termination is held to be illegal, the reference could not be rejected on the ground that the dispute was raised belatedly after six years from the date of termination. 17. So far as the observation of the learned Tribunal that no legal representatives had come before the Tribunal is concerned, the same is contrary to its own order dated 25th November, 1994 and is unfounded. 18. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the impugned award dated 26th April, 2000 rendered in Ref. Case no.44 of 1992 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.I, Dhanbad is wholly perverse and illegal. I further hold that the order of dismissal passed against the concerned workman by the Management is tainted on account of non-observance of the legal procedure and principles of natural justice and is wholly illegal and unjustified. The impugned award upholding the said order of punishment of dismissal against the petitioner is not sustainable and is hereby quashed. The order of punishment of dismissal against the petitioner is also quashed. This writ petition is allowed. 19.However, there is no order as to costs.