KULADHAR HAZARIKA Vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against judgment and order dated May 31, 2005 made in WP(C) No. 6544/1999 by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the learned Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the Respondents herein challenging the order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2.) The facts have been succinctly noticed by the learned single Judge in the judgment and order and therefore we will not burden this judgment by repeating the same, but, however, the relevant facts for disposal of this appeal shall be noticed.

(3.) That a charge sheet dated May 21, 1986 was issued by the Respondent Corporation against the appellant alleging that the appellant had acted in contravention of the orders dated April 28, 1986 and April 29, 1986 issued by the management requiring him to hand over the charge to his reliever. There was further charge of failure to hand over the charge to the reliever of the appellant and also he had abused, misbehaved with his superior. That a domestic enquiry was held in respect of the said charges and at the conclusion of the said enquiry on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the appellant was dismissed from service vide order dated November 28, 1986 passed by the management. That at the relevant point of time an industrial dispute with regard to claim of bonus involving the appellant-workman was pending and it is under those circumstances, the respondent employer filed an application before the Central Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for short 'Act', which was registered as Misc. Case No. 9/1988. The Tribunal by its order dated April 26, 1999 held that the domestic enquiry held by the management was not proper and accordingly allowed the parties to lead evidence before it. That by an order dated February 1, 1996 the Tribunal refused to accord approval to the dismissal of the appellant, which was impugned by the management in CR No. 3013/1996 in this Court. This Court vide its order dated November 16, 1998 remitted the matter to the Tribunal for de novo adjudication on the basis of the evidence already adduced during the course of the domestic enquiry. The Tribunal once again heard the matter and passed the order dated November 18, 1999 once again refusing to accord approval to the order of dismissal of the appellant workman from the services.