IMPORTANT POINT
The Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act is limited, and its interference with the punishment imposed on the Workman exceeded the scope of its authority.

ORDER :

The Present Writ Petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:

"i) call for records leading to the passing of the Order dated 12.4.2011, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, in Serial Application No.17/2001 (ANNEXURE-M);

ii) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing the order dated 12.4.2011, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, in Serial Application No.17/2001 (Annexure-M);

iii) grant any other relief (s) as may be deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice and equity."

2. The above Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner - Management (hereinafter referred to as the Management) challenging the order dated 12.04.2011 passed in Application No.17/2001 by the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'the Tribunal').

3. The facts are that admittedly, the Respondent-Workman (for short the 'Workman') joined the services of the Management w.e.f. 01.09.1991. He was served with a charge sheet cum show cause notice dated 16.12.1998. The Workman submitted his explanation on 21.12.1998 denying the charges levelled against him. The enquiry was conducted and vide report dated 19.04.2001, it was held that the Workman was guilty of the charges alleged against him. Thereafter, the Workman was issued with a second show cause notice dated 27.04.2001 along with a copy of the finding of the enquiry officer and sought for his response. The Workman submitted his explanation to the second show cause notice on 10.5.2021. Vide order dated 22.05.2001, the Workman was dismissed from service, consequent to which, application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'Act') was filed by the Management before the Tribunal, seeking approval of the action of the Management in dismissing the Workman from the services of the Company. Vide order dated 24.05.2008, the Tribunal held that the Domestic Enquiry conducted was fair and proper. Vide order dated 12.4.2011, the Tribunal rejected the application filed by the Management under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner Sri Pradeep S.Sawkar contended that;

(i) The Tribunal misconstrued the scope of jurisdiction under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act and proceeded to consider the application as one under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act.

(ii) The enquiry was held to be fair and proper and hence, the misconduct of the Workman is proved. That in view of the proved misconduct, the allegation of the victimisation becomes insignificant.

(iii) There is no plea regarding victimisation and the Tribunal proceeded to consider the material on record in the absence of plea.

(iv) The aspect regarding victimisation cannot be considered in proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act.

(v) The entire reasoning of the Tribunal on the ground that the Workman has been discriminated is liable to be interfered with inasmuch as the role played by the Respondent and other persons are wholly different and the question of parity does not arise.

5. In the course of his submissions, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on various findings recorded by the Tribunal as well as the various material available on record and they have been referred infra. Further he has relied on the following judgments:

(a) Cholan Roadways Ltd., Vs. G. Thirugnanasambandam, (2005) 3 SCC 241

(b) M/s. Elastrex Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Sri Janardhana, ILR 2012 KAR 4473

(c) M/s Bharat Iron Works Vs. Bhagubhai Bhalubhai Patel & Others, (1976) 1 SCC 518

(d) Management of Hamdard Dawakhana Wakf Delhi Vs. Workmen and others, (1962) 2 LLJ 772

(e) Krishnakali Tea Estate Vs. Akhila Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh & Another, (2004) 8 SCC 200

(f) Bharat Forge Co.Ltd., Vs. Uttam Manohar Nakate., (2005) 2 SCC 489

(g) India General Navigation & Railway Co.Ltd., Vs. Workmen, (1960) 1 LLJ 13 (SC)

(h) The Management of M/s Bata India Ltd., Vs. Bata Employees' Association & Others, W.P. N