R.N. Misra, J. - (1.)A dismissed workman in the employment of M/s. Hindusthan Steel Limited, Rourkela is the petitioner before us challenging the order of the State Government dated 4-5-65, by which it refused to make a reference to an alleged industrial dispute for adjudication by the Tribunal in exercise of its powers under Sec. 12 (5) read with Sec. 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner was appointed as a Pharmacist under the Hindusthan Steel Limited on 1-7-55, and it is stated that he was a member of the North Orissa Worker's Union, Rourkela. After serving for some years he became a Senior Store Keeper and was attached to the Ispat General Hospital at Rourkela. He went on leave for six weeks during the cold weather of 1961 and upon return to duty found shortage in the stock and brought the said fact to the notice of the Store Superintendent. After a check-up, stocks worth Rupees 1352.75 were assessed to have been missing and the said value was ordered to be recovered from the pay of the petitioner and his future increments were stopped. The petitioner thereupon raised a dispute under the Payment of Wages Act before the competent officer in Misc. Case No. 5 of 1962. In Jan. 1964, the conduct of the petitioner was again enquired into, and . ultimately by an order dated 27-4-64 the Management dismissed the petitioner from employment.
(2.)It is stated that this order of dismissal is bad on account of-
A. Violation of natural justice and the provisions of the Standing Orders:-

(i) Copies of documents not furnished;

(ii) Personal hearing denied, though asked for;

(iii) Opportunity to give defence denied;

(iv) Findings not supplied to give a second show cause;

B. The dismissal order by a person not being the appointing authority;

C. Two punishments for the same offence not being admissible in law;

D. The petitioner being an active member of the Union, punishment was meted out by way of victimisation; and

E. Permission not having been obtained from the Industrial Tribunal under Sec. 33 of the Act though Industrial Dispute Case No. 11 of 1963 was by then pending.

(3.)In this application we are not concerned with the legality of the dismissal of the petitioner from service. If the petitioner wanted to challenge his dismissal directly in an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution, remedy under our inherent jurisdiction would be barred on account of the fact that M/s. Hindusthan Steel Limited in respect of employment under them do not come under our extraordinary jurisdiction. This point has been finally settled by the Supreme Court and in a case recently disposed of by us concerning M/s. Orissa Industrial Development Corporation.