MANAGMENT INDIA ALUMINIUM CO LTD Vs. S NAGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge on 11-3-2005 in W. R nos. 32819 and 32820 of 2002 (reported in 2005 AIR Kant - HCR 1150), dismissing the writ petitions filed by the petitioner/appellant. Factual background :

(2.) TO appreciate the controversy raised in this appeal, few relevant facts may be noted : appellant is a Company engaged in manufacturing activities. Respondent was an employee of the appellant and at the relevant point of time, he was one of the Vice-Presidents of the Workers' Union. Charge-sheets dated 14-4-1980 and 29-4-1980 were issued to the respondent alleging acts of misconduct, to which, he submitted separate explanations, which were not accepted by the appellant and domestic enquiries were ordered, after holding of which, the enquiry officer submitted reports, holding the respondent guilty of certain charges. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 8-7-1980 was issued to the respondent, proposing the punishment of dismissal from service, to which, he submitted a reply dated 11-7-1980, whereupon, final order was passed by the disciplinary authority, imposing the punishment of dismissal from service, with effect from 15-7-1980. An industrial dispute pertaining to the jurisdiction or otherwise of the lock out declared by the appellant-management was pending at that point of time before the Industrial Tribunal ('tribunal' for short) in I. D. No. 8/80 (re-numbered as I. D. 17/83) and hence the appellant filed an application under S. 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short) seeking express permission to dismiss the respondent from service, with effect from 15-7-1980. Said application was registered as SI. App. No. 64/ 80 in the Tribunal and after its transfer to the tribunal at Hubli, it was re-numbered as Serial Application No. 26/83. The Tribunal framed a preliminary issue regarding the validity of the domestic enquiry held by the appellant and passed an order on 30-6-1986, setting aside the domestic enquiry on two grounds : (1) The respondent had not been afforded a reasonable opportunity and (2) The charge-sheets had not been issued by the competent authority. Management was however, permitted to justify the proposed action. Management filed W. R 13956/1986 challenging the said order. Respondent also filed W. P. 17231/1986, insofar as the order related to the granting of permission to the management to lead fresh evidence. Writ petition filed by the respondent was rejected on 14-10-1986 (reported in Vol. 69 (1996 FJR 369): (1996 Lab ic 848 (Ker) ). Respondent filed W. A. 3322/ 1986. The Division Bench disposed of the matters, by a common order dated 10-7-1990 holding that the charge-sheets have been issued by the competent authority, but, confirmed the order of the Tribunal setting aside the domestic enquiry (reported in ILR 1990 kar 2744 : 1991 Lab IC 1048 (Kar) ).

(3.) BEING aggrieved, appellant filed the writ petition, to which, the respondent filed statement of objections. On consideration, learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition, namely on the following findings :