BHARAT EARTH MOVERS LTD Vs. AROKIYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against two orders of the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore (2nd respondent herein) passed in Industrial Dispute No. 32 of 1972 on its file. The first order is dated 30-10-75 (Annexure-E) and the second order is dated 7-9-77 (Annexure-F)

(2.) The iacts giving rise to this dispute may briefly be stated; Petitioner is a Government Company and is engaged in the manufacture of Railcoaches, Trailers and Earth Moving Equipments. The 1st respondent was 1 workman under the Company. On the allegation tha,t he had committed misconduct as contemplated under the certified Standing Order No. 21.20, a charge-sheet (Annexure- A) was issued to him on 8-8-74 calling upon him to submit his explanation. On receiving his explanation (Annex- ure-B) the matter was referred to a Domestic Enquiry. The Enquiry Committee found him guilty of the charge of the misconduct complained of (Annexure-C). The 1st respondent was issued with a second show-cause notice communicating to him the decision of the factory Manager, and after considering his explanation a Decision was taken to dismiss him from service and an order was passed accordingly on 7-12-74 (Annexure-D). Since, at that time, an industrial dispute was pending before the Tribunal in Industrial Dispute No. 32 of 1972 and that dispute also concerned the 1st respondent, the Management made an application to the Tribunal under Section 33(2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act) seeking its approval for the action taken against, the 1st respondent. The Tribunal, by its first order referred to above, held that the domestic enquiry was invalid and proceeded to record evidence, calling upon the Company to substantiate the charge levelled against the workman. After recording some evidence and hearing the parties concerned the Tribunal passed the 2nd order rejecting the approval sought for by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by these two orders the petitioner, as stated above, has approached this Court seeking a writ of Certiorari quashing the said two orders.

(3.) It was argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal, misconstruing the relevant standing order and drawing inferences which ought not to have drawn from the facts placed before it, had passed the impugned orders and therefore the same deserve to be quashed.