NAVINE FLUROINE INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. SHANTILAL R. PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner for following reliefs:

(2.) It is reported that the matter is still at large before the Industrial Tribunal and though the application is filed and though the opportunity has already been given to the petitioner to lead evidence in support of the charges before the Tribunal itself in consonance with the decision of this Court in case of IDMC Limited v/s. Mistri Mohamad Chhotabhai in Special Civil Application No.14555 of 2016 dtd. 11/7/2018 and the said permission has already been granted by an order dtd. 29/9/2016. The only contention therefore, raised by the petitioner before this Court is that for passing the impugned order, a finding is given by the Industrial Tribunal that the inquiry report is not on record, whereas it is an admitted position that the inquiry report was supplied to the respondent workman. The other point that the petitioner raises is that the impugned order is on the basis that documents are not produced. According to the petitioner, the documents which are sought for and are not produced are not relevant for the purpose of subject matter and therefore, were not required to be produced. However, at this stage, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that this point may be kept open as the matter is still at large before the Tribunal.

(3.) Considering the aforesaid and the submission made by the learned advocate appearing for respondent that though the application is filed for closing the evidence of the petitioner company before the Tribunal, the same would not be seriously objected and as the order is of the year 2006 is there, it will be open for the petitioner to lead the evidence in support of the charges. At this stage, no interference is required in the impugned order. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to challenge the same after the final outcome of the proceedings.