M B SIDDARAJU Vs. MANAGEMENT OF POWERGEAR LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that arises for our consideration in the present appeal is, whether the interference by the Industrial Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 33 (3) (b) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947, in declining to grant approval to the order of dismissal dated 12. 12. 2007 passed against the workman pursuant to the domestic enquiry, is right and proper?

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are as follows: the respondent-workman was working under the appellant as Stores assistant. A show-cause notice-cum-charge-sheet was issued against the respondent alleging that he left the factory premises unauthorisedly on the ruse of visiting Lakshmi Industries; helped an outsider, a photographer by name Mr. Srinivasa, to gain entry into the factory premises; made him take photographs of the Company's products unauthorisedly and thereby acted against the interests of the Company. In this regard a preliminary enquiry was conducted. In pursuance of the preliminary enquiry, charges were framed against the workman and a domestic enquiry was conducted. After taking into consideration the evidence of the management witnesses, the enquiry officer concluded the proceedings holding the workman guilty of misconduct alleged in the show-cause notice.

(3.) THE order of the Tribunal was challenged before the learned Single judge calling upon this Court to review the order of the Tribunal under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Again the law is well-settled.