P.D. Kudal, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against, the order of the Industrial Tribunal (1), Jaipur dated 6-10-1977.
(2.) The brief facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that the respondent No. 1 was employed as a labourer in the Civil Engineering Department of the petitioner's Lakheri Cement Works. The contention of the petitioner is that at about 6 a.m. on July 5, 1976, the respondent No. 1 wanted to go out of the gate without a proper gate pass and without any authority. Watchman Shri Sura Singh was on duty at that time. Havildar Amba Lal was also there. As the respondent was going out of the gate without any authority or proper gate pass, he was asked not to do so. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 1 got provocated and caught hold of the person of the Watchman, and attempted to assault him by hitting him with the helmet which he was wearing on his head. In this process, the helmet hit the forehead of the Havildar Amba Lal and he received some injuries. The respondent No. 1 was suspended and charge-sheeted. After domestic inquiry, he was dismissed from service on 8-9-1976. An application under Section 32 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act was made before the respondent No. 2, Industrial Tribunal, for getting approval of the dismissal of the workman concerned.
(3.) The respondent No. 1 was charge-sheeted on July 5,1976,to which he submitted a reply on July 6, 1976. He denied the allegations of the charge-sheet. On July 12, 1976, the respondent No. 1 was served with a notice of inquiry informing him that the inquiry will be conducted by Shri R. R. Singh, Personnel Officer, in the office on July 16, 1976 at 2.30 p.m. Shri Singh conducted the inquiry as contemplated. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 1 wanted that he should be assisted by a co-worker Shri Ramjiwan. He was allowed to be so represented. On July 16, 1976, the respondent No. 1 was asked to state what he had to say against the charge. The respondent No. 1 admitted the charge. The proceedings were drawn up in his presence and were written by Madan Lal Dixit, a Clerk in the office. These proceedings were signed by respondent No. 1 and his co-worker Ramjivan. The Personnel Officer also signed the proceedings. As the respondent No. 1 had admitted the misconduct committed by him the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on July 19 1976. This report was sent to the General Manager who dismissed the respondent No. 1 on Septmeber 8, 1976. When the matter came before the Industrial Tribunal, the respondent No. 1 raised the plea that the petitioner is guilty of corrupt labour practices as the domestic inquiry held by the Personnel Officer attached to the petitioner's Company was neither fair nor proper. It was also contended by the workman that at the time of the inquiry no witness on behalf of the petitioner was present. It was also contended by the workman that before examining the witnesses of the petitioner the admission of the misconduct by the workman was recorded by the Inquiry Officer, which was contrary to all settled principles of equity and justice. It was also contended that the Personnel Officer is an employee of- the petitioner, and as such impartial inquiry could not be expected from him. It was also contended that the admission of misconduct was obtained by the petitioner on an assurance that the workman would not be dismissed from service, and that no action will be taken against him if he made a clean admission of the guilt. It was on this assurance of the Personnel Officer that the workman confessed misconduct. Under these circumstances, it is contended on behalf of the workman that the petitioner is guilty of corrupt labour practices, and that the order of the Tribunal does not call for any interference by this Court. It was also contended that the order passed by the Tribunal is only an interlocutory order, and this Court, while exercising the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not interfere with the order of the Industrial Tribunal.;