- (1.) R. K. Gulati, J. By this writ petition two orders dated 5-10-1988 and 19-2-1991 passed by the Central Government In dustrial Tribunal cum Labour Court at Kan-pur are challenged.
(2.) THE petitioner was an employee of the new India Assurance Co. Ltd. (for short 'the Company'), who was charge-sheeted on 5-6-1984 on the allegations that he remained absent from his duties for more than 90 days which amounted abandonment of service. In the counter affidavit, it is averred that the petitioner was absent for 619 days at a stretch without submitting any application, medical certificate or receipts of purchase of any medicines. After a domestic enquiry into the charges, the ser vices of the petitioner were dispensed with by an order dated 15-6-1985 passed by a Regional Manager of the respondent com pany. Against that order an appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Chair man of the Company. THE petitioner then filed conciliation proceedings and, in due course the Central Government referred the dispute to the Central Government In dustrial Tribunal cum Labour Court at Kanpur which was registered as Industrial Dis pute No. 111 of 1987. Before the Tribunal, both the parties exchanged their pleadings and adduced their evidence in support of their respective case. THE petitioner had soughi before the Tribunal the quashing of the order by which he was removed from service. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner for the consideration of the tribunal was that the Enquiry Officer had not held the enquiry according to rules and he violated the principles of natural justice in holding the enquiry. THE respondents submitted before the Tribunal that in view of the facts pleaded in paragraph No. 32 of the written statement, it would be proper if a preliminary issue on the point whether or not the enquiry was conducted properly and fairly in accordance with the principles of natural justice be framed and in case find ings are against the management, an oppor tunity be given to the management to prove the charge against the workman. This re quest of the respondents was not opposed on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly the Tribunal framed the following preliminary issues for its determination by an order dated 5-10-1988 impugned in this writ peti tion: "whether the domestic inquiry was con ducted fairly and properly in accordance with the principles of natural justice. " From the order sheet of the Tribunal a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-4 to the rejoinder affidavit, it is apparent that after the preliminary issue was framed the proceedings progressed on several dates before the Tribunal. On 19-2-1991 the petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal with following prayer: ". . . . . . THE Tribunal may be pleased to Sri R. L. Barnwal, Record clerk in the office of opposite party No. 2 to make deposition and the entire case be decided on merits instead of deciding a prelimi nary issue regarding the conduct of enquiry. " In the aforesaid application it was inter-alia stated that the counsel who had appeared before the Tribunal on behalf of the petitioner without any instructions from him and without understanding the implica tions had agreed for framing of the prelimi nary issue. The application was however rejected by the Tribunal with the following order dated 19-2-1991: "there is no force made in the prayer in view of the preliminary issue framed as back as on 5-10-88. If the workman wants to examine Sri R. L. Barnwal as his witness on the preliminary issue he may produce him at his own expenses All that the Tribunai can do for him is tnat n can direct the management 10 relieve Sri Barnwal if the applies for leave in connection with his appearance as witness. With these observations the application is rejected. " On these facts the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the two orders aforesaid.
(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the par ties. It was contended that in deciding the preliminary issue as to whether enquiry was conducted in accordance with the rules and the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal will have to go through the same evidence which may be required to be con-sideied while disposing of the entire case and therefore the Tribunal erred in passing the impugned order dated 19-2-1991 reject ing the prayer to decide the whole dispute instead of only preliminary issue in the first instance.;