JUDGMENT

AGRAWAL, J.:- These appeals, by special leave, are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated July 27, 1984 in Writ Appeals Nos. 2383 and 2384 of 1982 and Writ Appeals Nos. 4660 and 4661 of 1982 arising out of Writ Petitions Nos. 866 and 12959 of 1982. Civil Appeals Nos. 4784-4785 (NL) of 1984 have been filed by the workmen of Bharat Fritz Werner (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Workmen) whereas Civil Appeals Nos. 4780-4783 (NL) of 1984 have been filed by the Management of Bharat Fritz Werner (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Management).

2. Bharat Fritz Werner (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) has a factory at Peenya, Bangalore. On March 8, 1978, the Management issued, a notice in connection with the recruitment of "Supervisors" for machine shop, from internal candidates, whereby it was indicated that persons who have passed S.S.L.C. and have at least 7 years of experience in machine shop would be eligible for recruitment. The said notice created resentment amongst the workmen. On March 10, 1978 a number of workers entered the office of the President of the Company. The case of the Management is that the workers terrorised the President and wrongfully confined him in his office and compelled him to withdraw the notice date March 8, 1978. On March 11, 1978 Charge-sheet- cum-Enquiry Notices containing the following charges were issued to 19 workmen:

"Whereas you......................along with 18 other at about 2.30 p.m. on Friday the 10th March, 1978 trespassed into my office with out my permission and there terrorised me and wrongfully confined me refusing to allow me to go and compelled me to withdraw the Notice No.BFW/ PERS/ 1 A 78, dated 8th March, 1978 regarding recruitment of Super visors, and thereby you have committed a misconduct within the meaning of sub-clauses 2,5, 6 and 12 of Clause 26 of the Standing Order of the Company."

3. By the said notice the concerned workmen were informed that an enquiry would be held into the above misconduct and the Enquiry Officer was appointed for that purpose. The workmen did not appear before the Enquiry Officer and he conducted the proceedings ex parte. He recorded the statements of seven witnesses (MWs 1 to 7). The Management also produced documentary evidence (Ex M 1 to M 128). The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on April 7, 1978, wherein he found 15 out of the 19 workmen guilty of the charge of misconduct. On the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Management passed orders dated April 7, 1978 whereby the 15 workmen who were found guilty of misconduct by the Enquiry officer were dismissed from service. As an industrial dispute between the Management and the Workmen was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, the Management made an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for approval of the action taken against these 15 workmen. During the pendency of that application, the Government of Karnataka, by order dated May 15, 1978, referred for adjudication, the dispute between the Workmen and the Management with regard to dismissal of the 15 workmen to the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). Before the Tribunal the case of the Workmen was that the domestic enquiry held ex parte against them is illegal and is neither fair nor proper. The Tribunal framed the following issue which was taken up as preliminary issue:

Whether the domestic enquiry conducted against the 15 workmen named in the order of reference has been fair and proper and in accordance with the standing orders of the 11-party and principles of natural justice?

4. The workmen examined 16 witnesses and produced a document marked Ex.WA. The Management examined three witnesses and produced documents marked Ex.M-1 to M-66.

5. The Tribunal, by order dated December 3, 1981, decided the preliminary issue against the Management and h