G. PATRI BASAVANA GOUD, J.

( 1 ) THE learned High Court Government Advocate takes notice for 1st respondent. 2nd respondent appears in person.

( 2 ) BY consent of both sides, the matter is heard and is being disposed of finally at this stage.

( 3 ) THE petitioner-employer manufactures valves, and the 2nd respondent-workman, a Science Graduate, had been working as a Quality Assistant.

( 4 ) THE 2nd respondent-workman is now dismissed from service. The order of dismissal had been preceded by four separate enquiries in respect of four different charges, in all of which, the workman was found guilty. The disciplinary authority, having accepted the said findings on proof of charge, has passed the order of dismissal. In that regard, the 2nd respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute before the labour Court, Mysore, by filing an application under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('act' for short ). On the preliminary questions as to validity of the domestic enquiries, the Labour Court, by its order dated 18-9-1997 at annexure-E, held all the four enquiries as invalid. The said order at Annexure-E is now sought to be quashed in this writ petition under Articles 226

Click Here to Read the rest of this document