The petitioner, Vishwanath is before me challenging the order and award of the Labour Court dated 19-6-2002, Annexure-P and 1-7-2004, Annexure- P1, in case No. ID 160 of 1997.

2. Facts in brief are as under:

The petitioner is a continued employee of respondent-management.

One Miss. Jayanthi lodged a complaint against the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner misbehaved with her and she brought the same to the notice of one Mr. Mitra. The petitioner was suspended pending an enquiry. Thereafter, he was issued with a charge-sheet-cum-show-cause notice for having committed misconducts under Standing Order under Clause 21(6), 21(4), 21(17), 21(32), 21(54) and 21(55). The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation denying the charges. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed by the management in the matter. The petitioner participated in the proceedings. Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry submitted his findings to the management. The management accepted the findings and thereafter issued a show-cause notice in the matter. The petitioner replied to the show-cause notice issued by the management. The management thereafter issued an order of dismissal dated 2-6-1997. The said dismissal order was challenged by the petitioner under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by way of a claim petition before the first Additional Labour Court, Bangalore in ID No. 160 of 1997. Parties entered appearance. They filed their respective statements. The Labour Court considered the validity of the domestic enquiry in the preliminary issue. The same was answered in favour of the management. The Labour Court thereafter heard the parties on the merits of the matter. After hearing, the Labour Court has chosened to confirm the punishment order in the award. The petitioner is challenging the preliminary order of enquiry and the subsequent award in this petition.

3. Respondent has filed caveat and they have entered appearance.

The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India. IA is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to raise additional grounds. The petitioner is to file the amended petition, if not already filed.

4. Sri M.R Rajagopal, learned Counsel is at great pains to show before me that the enquiry conducted by the respondent suffers from Various material irregularities so also illegalities. According to him, the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner is unsustainable. Learned Counsel says that along with charge-sheet, the management has not chosen to enclose various documents, list of witnesses etc., in the matter. It is also shown that the management has not chosen to disclose the misconduct in detail in terms of the charge-sheet. Learned Counsel further explains by saying that the Enquiry Officer is biased against him He says that earlier, he made allegations against the Enquiry Officer and subsequently another Enquiry Officer has been appointed. The petitioner wanted de nova enquiry to be conducted and the same has not been accepted by the Enquiry Officer. He finds fault with the enquiry proceedings. He says that the Labour Court without taking into consideration, all these aspects has chosen to accept the enquiry in the case en hand.

5. Insofar as the merits of the matter is concerned, learned Counsel says that the material available on record would not show that the petitioner is guilty of any misconduct levelled against him. He further says that Sri Mitra, the witness has biased against him and that therefore, the findings accepted by the Labour Court requires my interference.

6. Per contra, Sri S.N. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel who appears for the management would support the award. He further pleads that no leniency can be shown by the Court in a matter like this He says that the modesty of a woman is outraged in the case on hand which has been accepted by the Labour Court. He wants the dismissal of the petition. Both