ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. K HANUMANTHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner assails the legality and correctness of the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad in I.A. No. 124 of 1995 in I.D. No. 13 of 1993 dated 28-11-1995. A further consequential direction is sought directing the respondent-Industrial Tribunal to decide the issue of jurisdiction as to whether the petitioner in I.D. No. 13 of 1993 is a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the 'Act'). In effect, the petitioner prays both for a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the 2nd respondent - Industrial Tribunal in I.A. No. 124 of 1995 and for a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Tribunal to frame a preliminary point as to whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to proceed further in the matter.

(2.) Facts may be briefly summarised. The 1st respondent employee, while working as Development Officer in the petitioner-Insurance Company was served with a charge sheet dt. 26-11-1986 making certain serious allegations against him and alleging that he had exhibited lack of integrity and conduct unbecoming of a public servant and thereby contravened Rule 3 (i) of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975. The 1st respondent submitted his explanation on 22-1-1987 and an enquiry was held in which it is stated that the 1st respondent also participated. The petitioner here in passed orders removing the 1st respondent from its service vide order dated 28-11-1990 and the 1st respondent's appeal to the appellate authority was rejected on 27-9-1991. In June, 1992, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour at Vijayawada initiated conciliation proceedings in the matter and submitted his report and on the basis of the said report, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour by order dated. 16-2-1993 referred the following issue for adjudication and the same is pending on file of the 2nd respondent-Industrial Tribunal.

(3.) In the course of the proceedings, the 2nd respondent held that the domestic enquiry held against the 1st respondent is vitiated for the reason of non-supply of enquiry officer's report. However, the same is not the subject- matter of this writ petition.