R.B. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Labour Court, Meerut passed in Adjudication case No. 36 of 1979 between M/s Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., and Sri R. S. Goel . By the aforesaid order, the Labour Court rejected the application of M/s Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Virbhadra, Rishikesh, district Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as the employer) seeking permission to lead evidence that the termination of the workman respondent No. 2 is justified on the basis that he had committed theft of Rs. 1000/-.
(2.) The facts necessary for the decision of the case are that Sri R. S. Goel, respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the workman), was in the employment of the petitioner employer. The workman was last employed as an Assistant in the Accounts section of the establishment. The services of the workman were discharged simpliciter by an order of termination, dated 16 7.1977. The workman felt dissatisfied against the termination of his services aforesaid. The matter not having been conciliated, reference was sought under Section 2-A of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The State Government referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court, Meerut, treating it to be an industrial dispute covered by Section 2-A of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by an order, dated 11.4.1979. This dispute was registered as Adjudication case No. 36 of 1979 before the Labour Court, Meerut. The employer claims to have filed their written statement in the month of July, 1979. The workman claims to have filed his written statement in the month of August, 1979. Subsequent thereto both the employer and the workman also filed their rejoinder statements. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court framed the following issues : "1. Was the State Government incompetent to make the Reference under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. If so, is the order of reference bad in law ? 2. Is the dispute in question not an industrial dispute ? 3. Did the workman concerned commit theft as alleged by the Employer ? 4. Had the employer sufficient reasons for losing confidence in the workman concerned ? 5. To what relief ?
(3.) Thereafter on 5.2.1980, a statement was made by the Agent of the employer, who stated that the order terminating the services of the workman was not an order of punishment, as such issue No. 3 should be reframed. The extract order-sheet of the Labour Court, dated 5.2.1980 is as under : "5.2.80 Statement made by Sri Gautam on 5.2.80. 22.D/23-D. The agent for employers states that the order terminating the services of the workman concerned was not an order of punishment. Since Sri R. P. Gautam has stated that the order terminating the services of the workman concerned was not an order of punishment, Issue No. 3 is reframed as follows : Did the Employers act bona fide in terminating the services of the workman concerned -;