1. By this writ petition, the petitioner union challenges the dismissal of complaint (ULP) no. 55 of 1988 and Revision Application (ULP) nos. 43 of 1998, 46 of 1998 and 55 of 1998. The three revision applications were filed by three employees who were members of the petitioner union upon dismissal of their complaints. The petition was filed initially under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. At the stage of admission, the petitioner's counsel submitted that he was not invoking jurisdiction under Article 226. As a result, reference to Article 226 are deleted. At the stage of final hearing both sides agreed that Writ Petition No. 2678 of 2000 which was tagged along was not connected with this writ petition hence Writ Petition No. 2678 of 2000 was detagged. The facts in brief leading to the present petition are as follows:-

2. The petitioner is a union representing employees of the respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 company is engaged in manufacturing of radio, electronics, tape recorders, repairs and various other identical and mechanical items. It had inter alia, two factories in District Pune one at Loni and the other at Pimpri. The company employed about 2250 persons.

3. On 29th June, 1993 the respondent company issued dismissal orders to 5 workmen viz. S.N. Hadke, V.M. Kalbhor, S.R. Shewale, J.J. Lawrence and D.N. Kalbhor. At the relevant time, the said persons were the President, Vice President, Secretary and members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner. It is contended that the dismissal orders were issued without reasons. No charge sheets were issued. No domestic enquiry was held. The challenge therefore is on the basis of violation of principles of natural justice. According to the petitioner, they learnt much later that various false allegations were leveled against these employees. The company contended that it is not in the interest of employees to continue these 5 persons in their service.

4. It is the company's case that the dismissal orders contravened Standing Order no.25(3) and 24(4). They have further contended that as per the Standing Orders Act, it was mandatory to hold an enquiry against the concerned employee alleging misconduct under sub-clause (4) of clause 24 and in the instant case none of these provisions of the Standing Orders have been violated. It is alleged that the company was in a hurry to dismiss these employees with a view to victimize them for their legitimate trade union activities. It is alleged that the orders of dismissal were a colourable exercise of power and not in good faith.

5. The orders impugned recorded that four employees under the instigation of Mr. V. M. Kalbhor had participated in grave and serious acts of misconduct during the preceding seven months. Petitioners allege the management was attempting to implicate them on the basis of concocted evidence. Mr. Hadke was the President of the union. He had been removed from service once during the period when emergency had been declared but then, the union could not resort to a strike. The case of Mr. Hadke was referred to Arbitration and he was directed to be reinstated with full back wages. Since then, it is alleged, that the company had been trying to implicate him in other cases, Mr. V.M. Kalbhor and Mr. Hadke were suspended for three months. Mr. Kalbhor was prosecuted in a criminal case but the allegations were not proved. Mr. Kalbhor was not found guilty and he was reinstated in service.

6. It is contended that all allegations are vague because on the date when certain instances are alleged to have taken place, Mr. Hadke had a visitor from outside India and he had accompanied the visitor to the company's factory at least two hours prior to the alleged incident taking place. Mr. Hadke is believed to have taken the visitor for a lunch at a restaurant far away from the factory. Similarly other employees had contended that they were not present at the place where the alleged incident is said to have taken pla