The Tribunal has the authority to permit workmen to lead evidence on allegations of mala fides, bias, unfair labor practice, or victimization if the workmen can demonstrate that they were unaware of relevant facts or were prevented from proving them during the domestic enquiry.

( 1 ) THE above writ petitions filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, against four orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal, bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), have given rise to common question of law, and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. The petitioner in W. Ps. 2846 and 2847 of 1970 is the Ideal Jawa (India) P Ltd and the petitioner in W. Ps 3185 and 3205 of 1970 is Bharat electronic Limited. WP. 2846 is filed against the order dated 26-5-1970 in s L. No. 15 of 1969 in I. D. No. 77 of 1968 on the file of the Tribunal. The said order is passed on an application made by the workman Madan mohan seeking permission to lead evidence on the several pleas which he had raised in his statement of objections to the application for approval filed by the management under S. 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). After holding an enquiry into the alleged misconduct of the workman the management passed an order dismissing him from service and made an application for approval of the action taken by it under S. 33 (2) (b) of the Act since the adjudication of an Industrial dispute was pending before the Tribunal, and the alleged act of misconduct was an act unconnected with the dispute. The said application was opposed by the workman and it was pleaded, inter alia, on his behalf that the order of dismissal had been passed against him for his trade union activities and that the action of the management in terminating his services was mala fide. It was further pleaded that the order of dismissal was also an act of victimisation. Before the Tribunal disposed of the said application under S. 33 (2) (b) of the Act, an application was filed on behalf of the workman seeking permission to lead evidence on the several pleas raised in the statement of objections. That application was opposed by the management. After hearing the parties, the tribunal passed the impugned order permitting the workman to lead evidence only in support of his plea of victimisation. It is that order which is challenged in the above writ petition.

( 2 ) THE order impugned in W. P. 2847 of 70 is similar to the one impugned in w. P. 2846 of 1970, the only difference between this and the other petition being that the application pending before the Tribunal is one made under S. 33 (3) of the Act for permission to dismiss one Inayathulla sheriff, who is the workman involved in an act of alleged misconduct. In that case also, objections were filed on behalf of the workman containing allegations similar to the objections filed on behalf of the above said madan Mohan and an application was made on behalf of the workman seeking permission to lead evidence in support of the pleas raised in the statement of objections. The Tribunal allowed the said application only to the extent of permitting the workman to lead evidence on the issue of victimisation.

( 3 ) IN WPs. 3185 and 3205 of 1970, the management has challenged a common order passed on SI. No. 30 and SI. No. 31 of 1966 in I. D. Nos. 55 and 101 of 1966 on the file of the Tribunal. In both these cases the management had made applications under S. 33 (2) (b) of the Act for granting approval to the dismissal of two workmen, D. S. Raju and M. S. Mani there again in the statement of objections filed to the above applications, it was pleaded that the enquiry on which the management relied upon was vitiated on several grounds, one of them being victimisation of the workmen by the management. In these two cases, on behalf of the workmen, applications were filed seeking permission to lead evidence in support of the several pleas raised in the statement of objections. After hearing the parties the Tribunal passed the aforesaid common order permitting the workmen to lead evidence on the question of victimisation only. Aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner has filed the above twp petitions.

( 4 ) IT may be mentioned he