This writ petition has been filed by Voltas Limited-Allwyn Unit, represented by its Chief Executive, seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records from the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad relating to the Award passed in I.D.No.48 of 1996 dated 30.6.1998 and quash the same.

2. Background facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of this writ petition by the Voltas Limited, are:-

The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913, as a company limited by shares. M/s. Hyderabad Allwyn Limited had become sick and its accumulated losses had exceeded Rs.180 crores as on 31.3.1993. The matter was referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (“BIFR”) under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The `BIFR’ at its meeting held in January 1993 declared M/s.Hyderabad Allwyn Ltd., as a sick industry and appointed IDBI as an operating agency to prepare a rehabilitation scheme. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, vide G.O.Rt.No.384, dated 31.3.1993 agreed to amalgamate Hyderabad Allwyn Limited with Voltas Limited, taking due cognizance that Voltas Limited would retain only 5000 employees. K.Jagan Mhan Rao-2nd respondent is one among the 5000 employees absorbed by the Voltas Limited. The BIFR, vide proceedings dated 4.4.1994, sanctioned a scheme of amalgamation of Hyderabad Allwyn Limited with Voltas Limited. Pursuant to the scheme sanctioned by BIFR, the Refrigeration and Appliances division of erstwhile Hyderabad Allwyn Limited was merged with Voltas Limited. The Watch Division of erstwhile Hyderabad Allwyn Limited was formed into a new company as Allwyn Watches Limited and the Auto and Bus Body division was formed into a new company called Allwyn Auto Ltd. Consequent to the scheme of Amalgamation as approved by the BIFR, M/s.Hyderabad Allwyn Limited ceased to be in existence.

3. The 2nd respondent-workman was appointed as a Trainee in Hyderabad Allwyn Limited on 5.5.1986 for a period of one year and subsequently his services were confirmed in the year 1987. The petitioner company carried on three shifts and the work force was distributed among the three shifts. The 2nd respondent-workman was posted in the General Shift, i.e., from 8.30 AM to 5.00 PM during the week from 28.8.1995 to 2.9.1995. He disobeyed the specific instructions and attended the third shift from 10.00 PM to 6 AM during the week period from 28.8.95 to 2.9.95. He was not allotted any work in the third shift since his attending the third shift was contrary to the specific instructions and as such he was marked absent for the entire week. On 3.9.1995, at about 8.15 A.M., when the Supervisor V.Satyanarayana was allotting work to the workers in the general shift, the 2nd respondent went to him and questioned him for marking absence in the general shift. He also asked the Supervisor to reimburse his salary for the period he was marked absent, from his pocket. When the Supervisor refused to grant him attendance for the period of absence, the 2nd respondent started abusing him in filthy language, caught hold of his shirt and slapped him on his right cheek. When the Assistant Manager-N.Venkateshwarlu, who was standing nearby tried to intervene, the 2nd respondent pulled him also.

4. The 2nd respondent-workman was placed under suspension with immediate effect and a charge sheet was issued to him on 4.9.1995. The 2nd respondent submitted explanation under letter dated 6.9.1995. The Management found the explanation not satisfactory and ordered an enquiry and appointed an Enquiry Officer, vide proceedings dated 12.9.95. The Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry after putting on notice to the 2nd respondent as well as the Presenting Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 17.11.1995 holding the 2nd respondent-workman guilty of the charges. The 2nd respondent was issued a notice on 16/19-02-1996 proposing punishment of dismissal. The 2nd responde