G.N.Ray, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated June 7, 1985 passed by the learned trial Judge in Civil Order No. 8109(W) of 1985. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned trial Judge directed the Industrial Tribunal in case No. 8/326/78 to treat the preliminary enquiry and the reports submitted on conclusion thereof to be fair and proper and thereafter to proceed with the reference in accordance with law. Sri Sujit Ghatak was an employee of the Peerless General Insurance and Investment Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company). A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against Sri Ghatak and pursuant to such disciplinary proceeding, the service of Sri Ghatak was terminated on August 27, 1975. The Government of West Bengal by memo dated September 21, 1978 made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal concerning 14 employees of the Company including Sri Sujit Ghatak. It appears that out of 14 persons, the cases of dismissal of three employees including Sri Ghatak was taken up by the Tribunal. The validity of the domestic enquiry resulting in the order of dismissal was taken into consideration as a preliminary issue by the Industrial Tribunal by consent of parties. It appears that the Company and the Union submitted their statements and relevant documents were produced and marked as exhibits before- the Tribunal. Three enquiry officers in respect .of the said three employees had deposed and the concerned workmen against whom orders of dismissal were passed had also deposed. The domestic enquiry in case of Ratan Dey and Ashoke Chakraborty were held to be in accordance with principles of natural justice but in respect of Sri Sujit Ghatak the Tribunal held, inter alia, that "the enquiry officer did not consider or did not go into the question whether superior officer could pass the order which the worker is said to have violated. In this view of the matter, I do not think that the enquiry and the finding arrive at in the same are proper and justified. The order of dismissal therefore is set aside and the Company is allowed opportunity to prove its case for the first time before this Tribunal as the whole thing is at large". Such order was challenged by the Company in a writ petition before this Court. Such writ petition was disposed of by the learned trial Judge on April 25, 1984 and the Company preferred an appeal against the decision of the learned trial Judge before a Division Bench of this Court in F.M.A.T. No. 1721 of 1984. The Court of appeal quashed the impugned order of the Tribunal so far as it related to Sri Sujit Ghatak and directed the Tribunal to consider the question of validity of the, domes- tie enquiry in the light of the observations made in the judgment of the appeal Court. The said question was thereafter taken for consideration by the Tribunal and the parties advanced fresh arguments. The Tribunal by its order No. 74 dated 6.11.1984 held, inter alia, that service rules nowhere provided that the Assistant Secretary was clothed with the authority to advice the workmen not to sign the attendance register and the Assistant Secretary could not advise or order the workmen not to sign the attendance register and the workmen therefore did, not disobey lawful or reasonable order of any superior and it was bounden duty of the enquiry officer to consider whether any lawful or reasonable order consistent with the memorandum of settlement have been passed and whether there was. any inspection of the same. As the enquiry officer did not at all advert to such aspect and mechanically arrived at a finding the enquiry was not concluded in accordance with the principles of natural justice and in that view of the matter set aside the enquiry held by the Company and called upon the Company to prove its case before the Tribunal.
(2.) The Company thereafter challenged the legality and validity of the said order No. 74 dated 6.11.1984 in another writ petition before this Court whereupon Civil Order No. 8109 (W) of 1985 arose. The learned trial Judge disposed of such writ petition in the manner indicated hereinbefore and the instant appeal has been preferred by the Peerless Employees Union and the concerned workman namely Sri Sujit Ghatak.
(3.) To say the least, it is really unfortunate that the reference case relating to dismissal of the workmen in still pending before the Tribunal since 1978 to serious prejudice of the concerned workmen. Despite the anxiety expressed by the Supreme Court in the decision made in the case of D. P. Meheswari vs. Delhi Administration reported in A.I.R. 1984 Supreme Court page 153 that the reference case should be disposed of expeditiously and interference with any preliminary issue should not be made so that final adjudication is delayed, such interference has been made in the previous, writ proceeding and also in the instant writ proceeding. Be that as it may, since interference has been made and the decision has been given by the learned trial Judge in the writ petition, it is necessary to consider the said decision for disposing of this appeal.;