- (1.) The above writ appeal has been filed against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court, dated August 7, 1992, in W.P. No. 14593 of 1990, whereunder the learned single Judge, while allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondent management, quashed the interim award passed by the second respondent -Labour Court, dated March 30, 1990, in I.D. No. 12 of 1981.
(2.) . The second respondent in the writ petition, whose cause is now espoused in this writ appeal by the Tube Products Employees' Union represented by its Secretary, was an employee of the first respondent - management come February 11, 1964. On receipt of as complaint against the said employee from one M.R. M. Sivalingam, Senior Engineer (Tool Room), to the effect that he misbehaved with him on November 5, 1977, at about 12 noon, the employee was said to have been placed under suspension on November 7, 1977, and a charge memo was also said to have been issued. A domestic enquiry was said to have been conducted after obtaining his explanation dated November 8, 1977, and the enquiry officer seems to have submitted a report dated March 20, 1978. Thereupon, the employee was dismissed from service by an order dated March 23, 1978. Aggrieved when the worker moved for raising a dispute seeking for reference of the question of his non -employment, the Government appears to have initially rejected the request. Thereafter, the employee appears to have filed a reconsideration petition and at that stage the non -employment of the employee was referred to the second respondent herein and entertained as I.D. No. 12 of 1981. The first respondent - management seems to have filed W.P. No. 2539 of 1981 before this Court, challenging the order of reference and by an order dated October 3, 1985, the writ petition came to be dismissed and the Labour Court was directed to dispose of the industrial dispute.
(3.) During the trial of I.D. No. 12 of 1981, a preliminary issue appears to have been raised and formulated for consideration, viz., the legality and validity of the domestic enquiry. Though the domestic enquiry was challenged on several grounds, one such, ground appears to be based on the reason of non -payment of the subsistence allowance and, therefore, conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. Relying upon the decision in Motor Industries Co. Ltd. v/s. Additional Labour Court, 1988 72 FJR 448, of the learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court, which, in turn, purported to follow and apply the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision in Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki v/s. Industrial Tribunal : (1986)IILLJ124SC Ghanshamdas Srivastava v/s. State of Madhya Pradesh, : (1971)3SCC802 , and V. P. Gindroniya v/s. State of Madhya Pradesh : (1970)IILLJ143SC , the second respondent -Labour Court held by its preliminary order dated March 30, 1990, that the domestic enquiry conducted stood vitiated and consequently, directed the main matter to be called on May 26, 1990, for further proceedings and course of action.;