The limited nature and extent of the enquiry permissible under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the need for the authority to consider whether a prima facie case for according approval is made out by the employer.

1. The petitioner, Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. (KFIL) has filed these writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, against four respondents-workmen, Sri. K Shivaramappa and three others, aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Hubli on Serial Application Nos.2 to 5 of 2007 in an already pending Dispute vide KID No.2/2006, whereby the learned Industrial Tribunal, while keeping the aforesaid Serial Applications filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(for short, ‘the Act’) read with Rule 61(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Rules) 1957, as pending, itself suo-motu raised a preliminary issue and held against the petitioner Management that the Domestic Enquiry against the respondents workmen was not fair and proper.

2. The facts leading to the filing of these writ petitions are as under:

The respondents workmen were served with charge sheets of habitual absenteeism on 15.06.2006, to which the respondents workmen filed their explanation on 29.07.2006. Not satisfied with the explanation, the petitioner Management decided to hold an enquiry on 1.5.2006. An advocate of Hubli, outsider to the Management, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. The said enquiry was completed after the explanation to the show-cause notice issued by the enquiry officer to the respondents workmen. The Enquiry Officer found guilty of unauthorised absenteeism and their services were terminated vide Dismissal order dated 1.12.2006 passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Since another industrial dispute vide case KID No.2/2006 was pending before the learned Industrial Tribunal, Hubli with regard to the Charter of Demands raised by the workmen, the Management filed the aforesaid Serial Applications in respect of four workmen as per the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. The respondents workmen filed their objections to the said Serial Applications before the learned Industrial Tribunal, Hubli and the Tribunal passed the aforesaid impugned interlocutory order on 4.3.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner Management has filed these writ petitions before this Court.

3. The reasons assigned by the learned Industrial Tribunal as contained in paras 10 and 11 of the impugned interlocutory order dated 4.3.2010 are quoted below for ready reference:

“10. This Tribunal by coming to the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer, it cannot be disputed that on behalf of the applicant management three witnesses were examined, they have been elaborately cross-examined, the delinquents are also examined. The entire enquiry proceedings are at Ex.A.3. On perusal of the entire enquiry proceedings including all other materials in the records it is nowhere seen that the enquiry officer has conducted the preliminary enquiry of delinquents and recorded their plea. The first and the foremost procedure to adopt by the enquiry officer is to conduct the preliminary enquiry and to record the plea. It is the duty of the enquiry officer to get confirmed by putting questions stating that whether he has received the copies of all documents, whether he has received the list of witnesses etc. In his cross-examination, the enquiry officer who is AW1 deposed stating that it is true that along with charge-sheet, list of witnesses and copies of documents are not given. It is for the enquiry officer to get ascertain the same and only after supply of the same, he has to proceed to conduct the enquiry. Apart from this, it is for the enquiry officer to conduct the preliminary enquiry and to record the plea of the delinquent. In case, the plea is recorded then only it will come to know that whether the delinquent is going to plead guilty or not. In case, if he is pleaded guilty, then there is no question of recording evidence on behalf of the management as well as the evidence of delinquent. In the present case, as the preliminary enquiry is not conducted and plea is not recorded, it is not known