ABDUL RAHIMAN KUNJU M Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. C. P. Sudhakara Prasad for the appellant, learned Govt. Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. Ashok Shenoy for respondents 3 and 4.

(2.) Appellant is the petitioner in O. P. 8944/91 which was filed by him to call for the records leading to Ext. P7 and quashing the same and for a mandamus directing the Industrial Tribunal, Quilon to proceed with the adjudication of the issue referred under Ext. P3. A further prayer by way of mandamus seeking an order declaring that the government have no power to interfere with the issue referred to in Ext. P3 while the adjudication proceedings are pending before the Industrial Tribunal.

(3.) The facts of the case are as follows: Appellant is a cashew exporter manufacturing cashew in his factory. The fourth respondent, Sarasamma Amma was employed as a shelling worker in his factory at Mukhathala. On 26-11-1988, the fourth respondent refused to give attendance card to the watchman who was posted at the factory and talked in an indecent manner to the watchman and also to a clerk at that time. She also shouted with indecent words to the manager. A show cause notice was prepared on 26-11-1988. When it was attempted to be given to her, she did not receive it and went from the factory without permission. She did not turn up for work from 28-11-1988 onwards. Hence the show cause notice dated 26-11-1988 and another show cause notice dated 28-11-1988 were sent to her by post. She sent replies to the show cause notices. An enquiry was conducted by an advocate, who submitted his report, Ext. P1. She was found guilty. On the basis of the findings of the enquiry officer and after following the procedure prescribed by law, the fourth respondent was dismissed from service on 18-7-1989. After the dismissal of the fourth respondent, the government referred an industrial dispute at the instance of the third respondent union to the industrial tribunal by Ext. P3 government order dated 25-9-1989. The question referred for adjudication by Ext. P3 was "denial of employment to Sarasamma Amma, Shelling No. 58 of Mukhathala Cashew Factory with effect from 26-11-1988". Before the Tribunal, the union filed Ext. P4 statement to which Ext. P5 reply was filed by the appellant. In the reply, the appellant pointed out to the Tribunal that there was no denial of employment to the fourth respondent, but the fourth respondent abandoned the work assigned to her in the factory after creating an unpleasant situation. Proceedings before the Tribunal started on 3-11-1989. Thereafter, there were several postings of the case and the last of such posting was on 18-7-1991. The fourth respondent was examined in full regarding the dispute Ext. P3 referred for adjudication. Thereupon, respondents 3 and 4 seems to have approached the District Labour Officer and the government for withdrawing Ext. P3 reference and making another reference for adjudication before the Tribunal. Thereafter, government issued Ext. P7 order dated 26-2-1991 by which the reference made under Ext. P3 was modified as follows: