VIPIN BEHARI LAL SRIVASTAVA Vs. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT KANPUR AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. K. Gulati, J. By this writ petition two orders dated 5-10-1988 and 19-2-1991 passed by the Central Government In dustrial Tribunal cum Labour Court at Kan-pur are challenged.

(2.) THE petitioner was an employee of the new India Assurance Co. Ltd. (for short 'the Company'), who was charge-sheeted on 5-6-1984 on the allegations that he remained absent from his duties for more than 90 days which amounted abandonment of service. In the counter affidavit, it is averred that the petitioner was absent for 619 days at a stretch without submitting any application, medical certificate or receipts of purchase of any medicines. After a domestic enquiry into the charges, the ser vices of the petitioner were dispensed with by an order dated 15-6-1985 passed by a Regional Manager of the respondent com pany. Against that order an appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Chair man of the Company. THE petitioner then filed conciliation proceedings and, in due course the Central Government referred the dispute to the Central Government In dustrial Tribunal cum Labour Court at Kanpur which was registered as Industrial Dis pute No. 111 of 1987. Before the Tribunal, both the parties exchanged their pleadings and adduced their evidence in support of their respective case. THE petitioner had soughi before the Tribunal the quashing of the order by which he was removed from service. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner for the consideration of the tribunal was that the Enquiry Officer had not held the enquiry according to rules and he violated the principles of natural justice in holding the enquiry. THE respondents submitted before the Tribunal that in view of the facts pleaded in paragraph No. 32 of the written statement, it would be proper if a preliminary issue on the point whether or not the enquiry was conducted properly and fairly in accordance with the principles of natural justice be framed and in case find ings are against the management, an oppor tunity be given to the management to prove the charge against the workman. This re quest of the respondents was not opposed on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly the Tribunal framed the following preliminary issues for its determination by an order dated 5-10-1988 impugned in this writ peti tion: "whether the domestic inquiry was con ducted fairly and properly in accordance with the principles of natural justice. " From the order sheet of the Tribunal a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-4 to the rejoinder affidavit, it is apparent that after the preliminary issue was framed the proceedings progressed on several dates before the Tribunal. On 19-2-1991 the petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal with following prayer: ". . . . . . THE Tribunal may be pleased to Sri R. L. Barnwal, Record clerk in the office of opposite party No. 2 to make deposition and the entire case be decided on merits instead of deciding a prelimi nary issue regarding the conduct of enquiry. " In the aforesaid application it was inter-alia stated that the counsel who had appeared before the Tribunal on behalf of the petitioner without any instructions from him and without understanding the implica tions had agreed for framing of the prelimi nary issue.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the par ties.