VIJAYA MOHINI MILLS Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second respondent is an employee under the petitioner. A co-worker by name Ravindran Nair filed a complaint against him. Second respondent was charge sheeted by Ext. P1 under four counts. A domestic enquiry followed. Ravindran Nair, the de facto complainant, himself prosecuted the enquiry. Second respondent says that Ravindran Nair was assisted by a co-worker Dayanandan as the Presenting Officer but the petitioner denies this fact. Second respondent was also allowed to be assisted in the enquiry by a union leader. Ravindran Nair and another employee were examined as witnesses by the Management. Ravindran Nair was not cross examined ,but the other witnesses was cross examined. Second respondent examined himself and another witness-Ext- P-2 is the enquiry proceedings and Ext. P-3 is the enquiry report. All the four charges were found proved-Management accepted the report and issued Ext. P-4 show cause notice why second respondent should not be dismissed. Cause shown was found not acceptable. Second respondent was dismissed on 18th March 1986.

(2.) An industrial dispute concerning the petitioner but unconnected with the 2nd respondent was at that time pending before the first respondent, Industrial Tribunal, Kollam, as I.D. 41 of 1982. Therefore, under the proviso to S.33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Dispute Act Ext. P-5 application was filed by the petitioner for approval of the action dismissing the 2nd respondent. By Ext. P-6 order approval was refused. This original petition is to quash Ext. P-6.

(3.) The reasons which weighed with the Industrial Tribunal for refusing approval are (1) Though there was no presenting officer for the Management and the complainant himself acted as the presenting officer and prosecutor he was allowed to be assisted by one Dayanandan. Complainant and Dayanandan examined the Management witness and cross examined the defence witnesses. This is violation of the principles of natural justice which caused serious prejudice to the 2nd respondent. (2) The defence witness was disbelieved for the simple reason that he was witness for the 2nd respondent in an earlier occasion. His evidence was not objectively assessed and the finding was on the interested testimony of the complainant. (3) Drunkenness which was one of the charges was accepted on the basis of circumstantial evidence without any medical evidence, and (4). On one of the charges of dereliction of duty the explanation giddiness offered by the 2nd respondent was not considered.