JUDGMENT- The facts leading to this petition must be mentioned before the points of law and of jurisdiction which have been raised can be appreciated. The petitioner was at the relevant time working with the first respondent, hereinafter referred to as "the respondent", as a watchman. He has been described as a round watchman which means, I am told, that he has to take rounds of the premises of the respondent and not merely to do the watchman's, duty at a single place. There was discovered in the premises of the respondent a theft of ten coconut trees in the early hours of 1st of November 1977 and since immediately preceding the discovery of this theft the petitioner was on duty as a round watchman it was alleged that he was guilty of negligence in the discharge of his duty. On, this basis, a charge-sheet was served Upon him and on being found guilty in an enquiry" about which, no grievance has been made either in the Court of first instance or later, a discharge order was passed on 7th of December' 1977. This order has been referred to at several places as the dismissal order.

2. The petitioner thereafter filed an application, being Application No. 22 of 1977, before the Labour Co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document