MEGNA MILLS CO LTD Vs. 4TH INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is directed against an interlocutory order passed by the 4th [industrial Tribunal in Reference Case no. VIII-117 of 1981 while it is true that writ court ought not, in the normal course of events, interfere with the interlocutory orders as it was laid down in the case of D. P. Maheswari. Vs. Delhi administration reported in (1983) Lab i. C. 1629, but by reason of the complexity of the case, a Rule was issued together with an exparte order of stay of further proceedings for a limited period. The matter was directed to appear after 2 weeks for hearing. On the date of. hearing Mr. Probash Chatterjee, the learned Advocate for the concerned workman submitted that by reason of the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Shambhunath Vs. Bank of Baroda, reported in 1983 Labour Industrial cases, 1697, Tribunal's finding in disallowing the application for amendment at the written statement cannot be ass-

(2.) IT is necessary at this stags to briefly refer to the relevant facts.

(3.) THE concerned workman, being the respondent N0. 3 was in the employment of the petitioner Company. On 5th March, 1974, a charge-sheet was issued against the respondent No. 3 and the latter was asked to file his explanation in writing which was done by the workman. Since the authority was not, satisfied with the explanation, a domestic enquiry was directed, which however culminated in the issuance of a letter of termination on 3rd May 1980,. Against the said order of termination, a representation was made to the Authority but to no effect and by reason whereof a dispute was raised and which resulted in the reference under 10 of the industrial Dispute Act.