L SUBBA NARASIMHA MURTHY Vs. BHARATH ELECTRONICS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against three orders, viz.,

(2.) .Action was initiated against the petitioner, who was a Clerk in the B.E.L. on the allegation that, on 26-8-1977, he had committed misconduct falling under Standing Order 15 (1) (c) by committing theft of a property of the B.E.L., it being, a brass piece. The Personal Officer of the B.E.L. conducted the enquiry in which the petitioner participated and was also assisted by certain Govindappa, a co-employee of his choice. At that stage seven witnesses were examined in support of the charge. The enquiry Officer held that the petitioner was guilty of the charge and submitted his report to the authority concerned. That competent authority, after considering the Enquiry Officer's report accepted the same, held the petitioner guilty of the charge, directed payment of one month's wages as required by law, and ordered his dismissal, and sought approval of the Industrial Tribunal under S. 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act) of the action taken against him. It is on that application filed under S. 33 (2) (b) by the B.E.L., the Tribunal passed its two orders, the first one on the question whether the domestic enquiry was in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and the second one according approval for the action taken. 2 (a). Though notices to respondents have been issued only re. Rule, both the sides agreed to argue the matter on merits and were accordingly heard.

(3.) While attacking the validity of the three orders impugned here, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no proper enquiry had been held ; that the article, in connection with which the alleged theft is said to have taken place, had not at all been identified at the time of the enquiry ; that the petitioner had not been supplied with a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer along with the final show-cause notice prior to the competent authority taking decision to dismiss him ; that in the matter of seeking approval by the Tribunal the relevant provision of the Act had not been fully complied with, in that, the order of dismissal should have been followed after obtaining the approval of the Tribunal ; and that, in any view of the matter, the Industrial Tribunal had not applied its mind fully to the facts of the case before according approval.