The main legal point established in the judgment is the scope and ambit of the enquiry under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, emphasizing that it should be a summary proceeding to determine the misconduct and the workman's opportunity to defend himself.

JUDGMENT

M.Nagaprasanna, J. - Aggrieved by the order dated 23.3.2016 passed in W.P. No.31843 of 2013 by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has affirmed the order of the Industrial Tribunal passed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dismissing the application filed by the writ petitioner-Corporation seeking approval of the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the respondent, the writ petitioner is in appeal.

2. The parties will be referred to as per their ranking in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

The respondent, who was working as a trainee Driver in the petitioner-Corporation, remained absent from duty unauthorisedly from 24.9.2010. Noticing the absence, the Depot Manager submitted a report of unauthorised absence of the respondent to the Competent Authority on 4.10.2010. Based upon the said report, the Competent Authority issued a show cause notice/call letter on 24.12.2010 calling upon the respondent herein to report to duty immediately. He was also asked to show cause as to why his name should not be removed from the list of trainee drivers in the event he does not report to duty. The respondent did not submit any reply to the said show cause notice/call letter.

3. In those circumstances, a departmental enquiry was directed to be conducted against the respondent for unauthorised absence from duty. It is the case of the petitioner-Corporation that sufficient opportunity was given to the respondent to defend himself in the enquiry. In the enquiry, a detailed report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer holding the charges leveled against the respondent herein as proved by his report dated 8.12.2011. On 7.1.2012, the respondent was issued with a show cause notice along with the finding of the Enquiry Officer calling upon him to show cause as to as why action should not be initiated in terms of the report. On 30.1.2012, accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the respondent came to be removed from the list of trainee drivers.

4. In the interregnum, there were proceedings initiated before the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No.148 of 2005 with regard to certain charter of demands in respect of revision of pay scales of employees and other issues which would be the conclusion of the dispute as applicable to each workmen as those proceedings were pending before the Industrial Tribunal. The petitioner- Corporation filed an application before the Tribunal in serial application SLA No.98 of 2012 in the pending I.D. No.148 of 2005 seeking approval of the order of removal passed by the petitioner-Corporation against the respondent herein under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act.

5. The Industrial Tribunal upon hearing the parties with regard to the application filed by the petitioner- Corporation for approval of removal, held that the charge alleged against the respondent was not proved and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner- Corporation seeking approval for removal of the respondent, who was a trainee driver.

6. This was challenged by the petitioner- Corporation before this Court in Writ Petition No.31843 of 2013. The learned Single Judge after hearing the matter, accepted the findings arrived at by the Industrial Tribunal in the approval proceedings holding that there was no case made out by the Corporation on the allegation of unauthorised absence and also recorded a finding that the Disciplinary Authority was required to prove that the absence of respondent was willful and in the absence of such findings, it would not amount to misconduct and dismissed the writ petition filed by the Corporation. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner-Corporation has filed the instant writ appeal.

7. Heard Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation. However, learned counsel for the respondent has remained absent.

8. The respondent-Driver, who was a trainee in the petitioner-Corporat