ANJANI KUMAR, J. - (1.) BY means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner -employer has challenged the award dated 29 -10 -1996 and the orders dated 24 -6 -1996 and 9 -9 -1996, which have become part of the award, passed by respondent No. 1 in adjudication case No. 50 of 1994, Annexure Nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively, to the writ petition.
(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are as under. The State Government referred the following dispute to be answered by the Industrial Tribunal, which has been registered as adjudication case No. 50 of 1994, which runs as under. .........[vernacular ommited text]........... By the order dated 24 -6 -1996, a preliminary issued was framed, which runs as under : Whether the domestic enquiry held is fair, proper and valid? If so, to what effect?”
(3.) THE finding of the Labour Court with regard to the aforesaid preliminary issue recorded by Industrial Tribunal is that the enquiry officer has not followed the principles of natural justice in holding the enquiry, therefore, the enquiry stands vitiated. The issue is accordingly decided against the petitioner -employer and in favour of the workman concerned. Thereafter the workman filed an application 8/A and petitioner filed objection 9/A and 10/A. This application and objection have been decided by the industrial tribunal vide its order dated 9 -9 -1996, Annexure -3 to the writ petition, wherein the industrial tribunal relying upon the decision reported in 1983 FLR (47), page 483 Supreme Court, Shambhu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda, has held that the enquiry held by the employer was contrary of the provisions of natural justice and was not fair even if the application filed by the employer that they may be permitted to led evidence to support their contention that the enquiry conducted by them was fair and proper is liable to be rejected and relying upon the aforesaid decision the industrial tribunal has rejected the objection filed by the petitioner -employer 9/A and 10/A and application filed by the workman 8/A concerned was allowed. This order has become final, which has been followed by the Labour Court in its award and arrived at the conclusion that the termination of the services of workman concerned by the employer cannot be sustainable, therefore order of termination dated 30 -3 -1991 is improper, unfair, illegal, invalid and unjust. The workman was held entitled of reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages and all other benefits, which he would have got if his services had not been terminated illegally w.e.f. 30 -3 -1991. It is this order, which is under challenge by means of the present writ petition.;