- (1.) Rukma was an employee of M/s. Neeraj Tising Industry, Ajmer. It appears that she committed certain misconduct as a result of which her services were terminated by the employer on 20th December, 1989. The charge against the workman was that the Manager had entered into conspiracy to get her kidnapped through one Amar Singh by offering her Rs. 10,000/-. Such an allegation was made against the Manager in front of other workmen and on Manager's asking as to why she had been casting such false allegations against him and despite his efforts to pacify her, she became violent and took off her chappal and threatened to beat him, but on intervention of some other workmen, she could not reach him. She despite the Manager's asking her to behave herself, continued to make allegations against him in the most filthy language.
(2.) Having regard to the said misconduct as also her other past misconducts, the workman was dismissed from service. She did not even acknowledge the receipt of the order of dismissal as a result whereof the same had to be sent to her by registered post along with a covering letter in respect thereof. She even refused to accept the dues as admissible to her and the same was sent by Money Order on 21-12-1989.
(3.) The appellant herein espoused the cause of Smt. Rukma (workwoman). As the conciliation proceedings failed, the matter was referred to the Labour Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act'). One of the issues framed before the Labour Court was whether the order terminating the services of Smt. Rukma was contrary to the principles of natural justice as no domestic inquiry proceedings were held for the said purpose. Under such circumstances, the employer opted to lead evidence to prove the charges as a result of which the services of Smt. Rukma were terminated. The Labour Court permitted the employer to lead evidence. After examining the evidence adduced by the employer, the Labour Court found that the charges levelled against Smt. Rukma are proved. Consequently, the Labour Court gave its award on 19-2-1996 against the workman holding that the charges are proved. Aggrieved, the appellant who espoused the cause of the workman filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Rajasthan High Court. A learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition. A letters patent appeal filed by the appellant also met with the same fate. Aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us by way of special leave.;