BANGALORE WOOLLEN COTTON AND SILK MILLS COLTD Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition purports to be under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner is the Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Company Limited, Bangalore; the 1st respondent is the State of Mysore, the 2nd respondent is the Industrial Tribunal at Bangalore and the third respondent is an employee in the Petitioner Mills. The circumstances out of which tha present petition arises, briefly, are as follows :-

(2.) The third respondent who was a lorry cleaner in the Petitioner Mills was alleged to have committed theft of a rug piece from the Petitioner Mills on 23-12-1955. The Manager of the Petitioner Mills hold an enquiry and examined witnesses. The management reached the conclusion that there was ample evidence to prove the charge of theft against the third Respondent and decided to discharge him from service. But, as an Indus-trial Dispute in Industrial Case No. 11 of 55 was pending at that time, before the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, the Management could not take action without the express permission of the Tribunal. Therefore, the Petitioner Mills filed an application under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act for permission to discharge the third Respondent. The Binny Mills Labour Association filed objections before the Tribunal, denying that the third Respondent had committed theft and alleging that the finding of the Manager was based on the interested testimony of employees. Tha Tribunal examined some witnesses, heard arguments of both the sides and by its order dated 20-12-1950 refused to grant the permission prayed for by the Peti-tioner Mills. It is in respect of this order that the present Petitioner feels aggrieved. It is prayed that this order be quashed by the issue of a Writ of Certioran. An affidavit and a counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of the Petitioner and the third Respondent respectively.

(3.) The main contention which has been urged by Sri Raju Iyer, the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that when there is no allegation against the Petitioner of aay unfair labour practice or victimisation and when the Tribunal had reached the conclusion that the Manager had acted bona fide in the conduct of the enquiry, the Tribunal should have accorded the permission that had been sought for by the Petitioner; it is further contended that the Tribunal was in error in taking up for consideration the question as to whether a prima facie case for theft had been made out against the third respondent. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the third respondent has argued that it is a matter well within the discretion of the Industrial Tribunal either to grant or to refuse the permission under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act and that the Tribunal was acting within its jurisdiction in ascertaining as to whether a prima facie case had been made out in respect of the improper act alleged by the management against the third Respondent Reliance has been placed on behalf of the Petitioner on certain observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court as reported at para 19 of Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ram Sarup (S) AIR1957 SC 82 , (1957 )I LLJ17 SC , [1956 ]1 SCR916 (A), and it is urged that if the Tribunal