RAMULU Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in these two writ petitions was appointed as an operator in the Hyderabad Vanaspati Ltd,. which is the second respondent herein. An industrial dispute, I. D. 80/71 was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad relating to revision of wages of the workmen of the second respondent company. On 10-10-1972 the matter was posted for hearing before the Tribunal. An incident appears to have taken place on that date and according to the second respondent the petitioner and others assaulted certain officers of the company. Accordingly on 13-10-1972 a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner in which it was stated that on 10-10-1972 he was absent without any authorisation and attended the Court of the Industrial Tribunal along with others when he resorted to violence and assaulted and beat the officer and representative of the management and the union leader, that is, Sri D, S R. Sastry, Sri B, K. Toshiwal and S. B. Mallesh in the premises of the Industrial Tribunal, who had come to attend the court, which was an act of grave misconduct and an act subversive of discipline. The petitioner was called upon to show cause to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The petitioner replied on 20 10-1972 complaining that material particulars of the charge were not mentioned and the notice was vague, and ambiguous. He also requested the authorities to furnish copies of ths complaints or reports lodged in regard to the alleged incident. He denied the allegations made in the notice and submitted that he had not attended the Industrial Tribunal on that day and did not take part in the incident. He further submitted that if better particulars and copies of the complaints and reports are furnished to him he would be in a position to tender his proper and comprehensive explanation. This explanation was not accepted and it is the case of the second respondent that his services were terminated with effect from 24-10-1972 though the petitioner denies that there was any such order of termination. Thereafter there was a strike on the part of the workers from 23-10-1972 to 30-11-1972. Oa 1-12-1972 the second respondent gave another notice to the petitioner in the following terms:

(2.) The petitioner filed on 27-6-1973 MP. 49/73 under Sec. 33-A of the Act complaining that the provisions of Sec. 33 had been contravened by the employer in terminating his services and requesting the tribunal to ajudicate upon the complaint as if it were an industrial dispute referred to it The second respondent in its turn filed MP.50/73 on 2-7-73, the application under Sec. 33-2(B) of the act for approval of the action taken by it in terminating the services of the petitioner. Both the petitioner were heard together by the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad. At the request of the parties, the Industrial Tribunal considered the question whether the application filed by the second respondent for approval was maintainable and the question whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the second respondent was fair and proper as preliminary issues and its finding on those two issues by an order dated, 11-12-1973. Thereafter it proceeded to consider the other contentions raised by the parties and by an order dt 11-4-1974 allowed the application. M.P. 50/73 filed by the second respondent and. dismissed the application, M,P 49/73 filed by the petitioner,

(3.) The petitioner has filed W.P. No. 3419/75 praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dt. 1-12-1973 giving its finding on the preliminary issues arising in M.P. 50/73. The petitioner also filed W.P.No. 2592/75 praying for the issue of a writ of certirrari to quash the final order passed in M.P. 60173 approving the action of the second respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner. It is convenient (o consider W.P.No. 3419/75 in the first instance as, if the petitioner succeeds in persuading us that the petition was not maintainable or that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper, the other questions do not arise.