BHAKAT GOLD MINES P LTD Vs. A THEODORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Because common questions of law and facts arise for consideration, these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. They arise out of two suits OS.No.96 of 1970 and OS.No.98 of 1970 on the file of the Munaiff, KGF.OS.No.96 of 1970 was filed by Parthasarathy, an employee of the Kolar Gold Mines Undertakings (hereinafter referred to as the Undertakings, and OS.No.98 of 1970 was filed by A. Theodore who was also an employee of the Undertakings. It is not necessary for the purpose of these cases to refer to certain proceedings which had taken place prior to 1-12-65. By its order dated 1-12-65, the Undertakings passed an order dismissing the plaintiffs from service at the conclusion of a departmental enquiry into certain alleged acts of misconduct committed by them As there was a reference made under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act pending adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal constituted by the Govt of India, applications were made by the Undertakings before the Tribunal under Clause(b) of sub-sec(2) of S.33 of the Industrial Disputes Act for approval of the action of dismissal taken by the Undertakings. By its order dated 30-10-68, the Industrial Tribunal accorded its approval to the action Of the Undertakings. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed the suits out of which these appeals arise, on 13-4-1970 for a declaration that the orders of dismissal passed on 1-12-1965 were void and for a decree declaring that the plaintiffs were entitled to be treated as the employees of the Undertakings holding the posts which they were holding immediately prior to the orders of dismissal and for other consequential reliefs.

(2.) The suits were contested by the Undertakings on various grounds. One of the contentions urged by the Undertakings was that the suits were barred by time. The trial Court decreed the suits. Aggrieved by the decrees of the trial Court the Undertakings filed two appeals in RA.Nos.55 and 56 of 1972 on the file of the Civil Judge, Kolar. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the appeals holding that the suits were not barred by time. He did not express any opinion on the other grounds urged in the memoranda of appeal. These two appeals are filed by the Undertakings against the decrees passed by the lower appellate Court.

(3.) Two points are urged by Sri K.J. Shetty, learned counsel for the Undertakings in these appeals-(1) the finding of the lower appellate Court that the suits were in time was erroneous and (2) that the lower appellate Court had committed an error in not recording its findings on other questions which were argued before it.