NIRANJAN DAS Vs. ASST. GENERAL MANAGER,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ Petitioner was an employee under the opp. party - Rourkela Steel Plant of Steel Authority of India Ltd. The case of the Petitioner is that in order to victimizing and curb his Trade Union activities, the employer with mala fide intention charge sheeted him on 12.8.2000 for commission of certain alleged misconduct of intimidating an officer of the Company within the work premises by exhibiting indecent behaviour etc. An inquiry was conducted to prove the charges levelled against the Petitioner which, according to the Petitioner was conducted in a perfunctory and arbitrary manner violating the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner alleges that he was not afforded with the opportunity to adduce evidence during the course of inquiry and the Enquiring Officer holding the Petitioner guilty of the charges, submitted a report. The disciplinary authority accepting the said report proposed to dismiss the Petitioner from service and since I.D. Case No. 7 of 1997 relating to Anr. industrial dispute was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela where the Petitioner was a party as the workman, the opp. party - Management filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for approval of its action as per the proviso to the said Section. The said application was registered as I.D. Misc. Case No. 46 of 2000. The Petitioner, on receiving the notice to show cause in the aforesaid case, filed his show cause. Thereafter, the opp. party filed an application to take up the question of fairness of the domestic inquiry as the preliminary issue, to which the Petitioner filed his objection. The said application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act was allowed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela by its order dated 11.7.2002. Being aggrieved by the said order annexed as Annexure -6 to the writ petition, the Petitioner has preferred this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) MR . Somanath Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the impugned order under Annexure -6 could not have been passed by the Industrial Tribunal on the application filed by the Management to consider the question of fairness of domestic inquiry as preliminary issue. He submitted that it is well settled in law that in an industrial adjudication, the industrial adjudicator is to take up all the issues simultaneously and it is not permitted to decide a case in a piece meal manner. He further submitted that if all the issues are not taken up together, delay would be caused in deciding the case which would lead to the misery of the workman and, such, the purpose and intention of enactment of the Industrial Disputes Act would be frustrated.

(3.) MRS . Jena, learned Counsel for the opp. party vehemently argued that since the order has been passed on a preliminary issue as to whether the domestic inquiry was conducted fairly and properly, the same is an interlocutory order and the Petitioner cannot maintain a writ petition against the said order.