- (1.) PRAYER in this writ application has been made by the petitioner Management of Tata Steel Limited for quashing the findings recorded by the Labour Tribunal, vide its order dated 14.3.2008 in Reference Case No. 12 of 2002, whereby while deciding the preliminary issue regarding the fairness of the departmental inquiry against the respondent workman, the Tribunal has held that the departmental inquiry was unfair and improper on the ground that subsistence allowance was not paid to the concerned workman.
(2.) A preliminary objection in this writ application has been taken by the respondent workman on the ground that since the issue involved relates to the findings of the Tribunal on the preliminary issue and the proceeding in Reference Case has not yet concluded nor a final finding have been given on the other related issues, the petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this court. Facts of the case in brief is that a departmental inquiry was conducted against the respondent workman on the charge that while on duty, he was caught by the security personnel of the petitioner management in the act of committing theft of certain articles belonging to the company, which were recovered from his personal possession. On the imputation that he has committed theft of the companys property, which amounts to a misconduct, the workman was asked to submit his written statement in his defence and to face a departmental inquiry. During the pendency of the departmental proceeding, he was put under suspension. On concluding the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer had found the workman guilty of the charges. On the basis of the Inquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority had imposed the punishment of terminating the workmans services. Being aggrieved, the workman raised an industrial dispute. The dispute was referred by the Government to the Tribunal for adjudication on the following terms of reference: "Whether the dismissal of Shri D.P. Mitra, Personal No. 113741, Hot Strip Mill, TISCO, Jamshedpur by the Management is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to?
(3.) ON appearance of both the parties in the proceeding, and after receiving their respective written statements, the Tribunal proceeded to decide on the preliminary issue as to whether the departmental inquiry conducted by the management against the workman, was fair and in accordance with the principles of natural justice? Evidences on this issue were adduced by both the parties. On considering the evidence, the Tribunal recorded its findings that full opportunity was given to the workman to defend his case at the inquiry and that the workman had availed the opportunity of cross -examining all the material witnesses of the management and also to submit his own case through his witnesses in defence. The Tribunal thus, did not find any infirmity in the manner in which the departmental inquiry was conducted against the workman, nor did it find any violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the inquiry. Yet, the Tribunal had concluded that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer was not fair and proper and that the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer is perverse. Such a finding has been recorded only on the ground that the delinquent employee was not paid subsistence allowance during the entire period of inquiry.;