RAMAKRISHNAPPA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an ex-employee of M/s. Bharat Earth Movers Limited, has presented this petition questioning the legality of the order made by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, granting the application made by the second respondent to the order of dismissal from service of the petitioner under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ('the Act' for short).

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are as under : The petitioner and two others were employees of the second respondent-industry. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them by the charge-sheet dated 30-11-1979 (Annexure-C). An Inquiry Committee consisting of three persons was appointed. The Committee held an inquiry against the petitioner and three other persons. The petitioner was found guilty of the charges. Thereafter, by an order dated 8th June, 1982 (Annexure-H), the petitioner was dismissed from service. As disputes, which attracted the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, were pending before the Industrial Tribunal simultaneously, the second respondent made an application before, the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. In the application the petitioner raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the application on the ground that the second respondent had not complied with one of the mandatory requirements of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, namely, payment of one month's wages. That application was heard and an order was passed on 25th February, 1984, holding that the objection was untenable, vide Annexure-B. Thereafter, the petitioner conceded the validity of the domestic inquiry, but contended that the finding recorded in the domestic inquiry against him was perverse. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal was of the view that the plea that the finding recorded in the domestic inquiry was perverse, was untenable. In view of the said conclusion, the Tribunal granted the application. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has presented this Writ Petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged the following contentions : (1) The finding recorded in the domestic inquiry was perverse and the Industrial Tribunal erred in holding that it was not so. (2) The order of dismissal was invalid as the second respondent-Management had not complied with one of the mandatory pre-conditions imposed by Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, in that, one month's full wages was not paid before dismissing the petitioner from service and that the Tribunal wrongly held that certain allowances not included in computing the wages for one month were not wages payable, in terms of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act.