N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J.

( 1 ) SINCE the facts and the points of law involved in both the appeals are common, both the appeals are clubbed together and disposed of by a common Judgment. The parties are referred to as the 'management' and the 'workman' in this Judgment.

( 2 ) THE order under challenge in both the appeals is the one passed by the learned Single Judge on 19-7-1989 in Writ Petition No. 1480 of 1986. Writ Appeal No. 1961 of 1989 was filed by the Management challenging the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge who had agreed with the order of the Industrial tribunal, Bangalore, rejecting the application filed by the Management under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act for approval of the order of dismissal of the Workman. Whereas, Writ Appeal No. 77 of 1990 filed by the Workman challenging the correctness of the liberty given by the learned Single Judge to the management to take such action against the Workman from the stage at which the illegality has crept into the enquiry proceedings.

( 3 ) A few facts which are necessary to dispose of both the appeals are as follows: The Workman was an employee of the Management. He was working in Design complex which is a part of the Management. The Management was engaged in the manufacture of Aeroplanes and Aero-engines. It was also engaged in overhauling of aircrafts. The Workman was served with a charge-sheet dated 26/29-10-1984 wherein the Management had alleged certain acts of misconduct as per Annexure 'a' which is extracted below:"hindustan Aeronautics Limited post Bag No. 1789, Bangalore-17. D/bdpe/pfr/365/84 October 26/19,1984. On a perusal of your personal records, it is seen that in the 2 Attestation forms dt. 22-4-1984 submitted by you, you had indicated 'no' to the specific question under col. 12 (i) (a), viz. , "have you ever been arrested? and col. 12 (i) (b) "have you ever been prosecuted? Since the 2 copies of the Attestation forms submitted by you were signed by 2 different Gazetted Officers, you were asked on 23-7-84 i. e. the day of your appointment to submit a new set of 2 attestation Forms both signed by the same Gazetted Officer. Accordingly, you submitted a set of Attestation Forms on 2-8-1984 wherein you have mentioned 'yes' to the questions specified under columns 12 (i) (a) and 12 (i) (b) as above, giving the particulars of a case which was tried in the Court of law against you and subsequently acquitted. Consequently, you were advised to submit copies of the Judgment of the relevant Courts. Accordingly, you submitted certified copies of the Judgments in the Court of Additional City Civil and Sessions judge, Civil Station, Bangalore, dated 4-8-1981 and the High Court of karnataka, Bangalore, dated 14-7-1983. In the copies of the Judgments submitted by you, it was noticed that during 1980 when you were arrested, you were employed in a factory called Technopack Engineering Co. , situated in the industrial Estate, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. However, in your application for employment dated 23-7-1984, under the column 'details of experience', you had stated that you had not worked anywhere. You had also not mentioned about your employment with the said firm in the Attestation Forms which clearly shows that you have deliberately suppressed the information regarding the court case against you as also your previous employment. Your above acts constitute misconduct under Clause 25 (2) viz. , " breach of trust or dishonesty in connection with the employer's business or property; 25 (8) viz. , "breach of Standing Orders or Rules or any law applicable to the establishment" and 25 (33) viz. , "wilfully making false declaration regarding age, qualification and experience in the application for appointment. . . " of the hal Standing Orders for which you are liable for disciplinary action. You are, therefore, hereby required to submit your written explanation and show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you

Click Here to Read the rest of this document