KOMARIAH S Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal raises a question of some importance. The petitioner was a workman in respondent No. 2 Department. On the alleged ground that the appellant submitted a bogus certificate as regards his work experience in the Office of the Block Development Officer, his services were terminated by order dated 21-4-1994 without any notice or opportunity of hearing having been granted to him. The appellant raised an industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal on considering the evidence in relation to the preliminary issue held that the order of termination is bad in law as prior thereto no enquiry has been conducted. The Tribunal further held that despite opportunity having been granted to respondent No. 2 Department, they did not adduce any evidence before the Tribunal. Despite holding so, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the respondent No. 2-Department for holding a fresh enquiry.

(2.) Questioning the said award, the appellant herein filed writ petition. The learned Single Judge on hearing the Counsel for the parties held that such power does not inhere in the Tribunal. He however directed:

(3.) Sri M. Fariduranga Rao, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that learned Single Judge having held the termination order is bad and having directed reinstatement of the appellant with backwages for a particular period, ought not to have made an observation in the last sentence of the order that respondent No. 2- Department, if so advised, shall be at liberty to follow the Industrial Disputes Rules and conduct enquiry into the allegation, which was the basis for the termination order, for it is not in accordance with law.