AMARESHWAR SAHAY,J. - (1.) THE order dated 18 -7 -1996 in Misc. Case No. 26 of 1992 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi is under challenge in this writ applications, whereby the learned Tribunal rejected the application of the petitioner -company filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred as the 'Act' for the sake of convenience) and thereby disapproved the action of the management in dismissing the workman, Lalandeo Singh, after holding that he workman -respondent No. 2 was victimized and the petitioner -company committed unfair labour practice by dismissing the respondent No. 2.
(2.) THE facts of the matter in short, which are relevant for the purpose of deciding . the present writ application, are as under : The Managing Director of the petitioner -company was assaulted within the factory premises by some outsides, According to the petitioner with the connivance of the respondent No. 2 who was a Security Guard and was on duty at the relevant time, the Managing Director of the petitioner -company was assaulted. It is stated that the respondent No. 2 was aware of the fact that the Managing Director was being assaulted but he did not take any step whatsoever although he was a Security guard at the relevant time which amounted to mis -conduct. Although the charge -sheet was issued to the respondent No. 2 on 10 -7 -1990 but the respondent No. 2 did not receive the same and then it was sent by the registered post which was refused by him and therefore, the action of the respondent No. 2 amounted to mis -conduct and therefore, another charge -sheet was issued to him which was received by him and he submitted his show -cause in respect of the charge -sheet. The management found explanation submitted by the respondent No. 2 to be unsatisfactory and then domestic enquiry was held after giving reasonable opportunity to the respondent No. 2 to defend himself. The Enquiry Officer on the basis of the evidence led before him held that the management has been able to prove the charge of mis -conduct against the respondent No. 2 and on the basis of the said enquiry report the respondent No. 2 was dismissed from service. Since the reference case being Ref. Case No. 3 of 1988 was pending, therefore, the petitioner -management filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act before the Tribunal for according approval of the action taken by the management regarding the dismissal of the workman -respondent No. 2. On the basis of the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act filed by the management, the learned Tribunal took up the matter to decide as to whether the domestic enquiry was fair and proper and as to whether reasonable the domestic enquiry was fair and proper and as to whether reasonable opportunities were provided to the respondent No. 2 to defend himself during the domestic enquiry.
(3.) EVIDENCE both oral and documentary were adduced before the Tribunal and on the basis of the materials on record, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that reasonable opportunities were given to the workman and principles of natural justice were observed in course of the domestic enquiry and as such the domestic enquiry held was fair, proper, valid, legal and justified. The order of the learned Tribunal dated 1 -11 -1993 has been annexed as Annexure -4 to the present writ application.;