Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court allowing the writ appeal filed by the respondents.
(2.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows : Two persons named Koshi Kottikeran and Liakath Ali were engaged as Commission agents with the appellant Bank in its Coimbatore Branch. On 11.10.1984 and 12.12.1984 engagements of Koshi Kottikeran and Liakath Ali came to be terminated by the appellant-Bank. Respondent No.1-The Union raised two disputes purported to be an industrial dispute with regard to alleged termination of the aforesaid two persons. The matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Tamil Nadu (in short the Tribunal) I.D. Case Nos.26 and 44 of 1987. Appellant Bank took the stand that these two persons were not workmen and in any event the disengagement was legal, justified and permissible. The Tribunal passed a common award answering the reference against the claimant and in favour of the management. Aggrieved by the award the respondent No. 1-Union preferred Civil Writ Petition No. 15538 of 1997 before the Madras High Court. Learned Single judge by order dated 15.10.1997 dismissed the writ petition. The Union carried the matter further in writ appeal. By the impugned order the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ appeal. The High Court came to hold that a Tiny Deposit Collector was a workman. Therefore, it is a valid dispute, and the dispute referred to can be adjudicated by the Tribunal. It referred to the letters of disengagement and came to hold that the termination orders disclosed that they were simple orders of termination. That being so no specific reason for termination of services was disclosed. They did not refer to any misconduct and therefore there was no justification for the Tribunal to permit the appellant-bank to rely upon documents and materials to justify the orders. It was also held that there was absolutely no acceptable evidence placed before the Tribunal to justify the orders of termination. Accordingly writ appeal was allowed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that it was permissible for the Tribunal to allow the employer to lead evidence. The learned Single judge categorically observed that the evidence led before the Tribunal was to substantiate the stand of the employer about the misconduct of the two workmen.;