An Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to strike off a party's defence or expunge the cross-examination of witnesses, as these actions go to the root of the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

( 1 ) BOTH the appeals and the writ application filed by the appellants herein involving similar questions of fact and law were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE fact of the matter is in a narrow compass.

( 3 ) THE concerned workman Sitala Prasad Pandey had admittedly been working with the appellant-trust. His services had been terminated; with regard whereto an industrial dispute was raised and pursuant thereto a reference was made by the State of West Bengal to the respondent No. 1 herein. The said reference was registered as a Reference No. VIII-330/85.

( 4 ) IN its written statement, the appellant in the said reference raised various contentions including one that the trust being a charitable institution, is not an industry. The said question was raised as a preliminary issue but the Tribunal directed that the said issue would be considered along with the merit of the matter. However, an application was filed by the concerned workman for grant of an interim relief as envisaged under Section 15 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act as inserted by amendment made by the State Government i. e. West Bengal Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act. The appellant filed an objection thereto. An ex parte order was passed on the said application on June 27, 1991. The appellant herein filed an application for recalling the said order whereafter the said order was recalled and the appellant was also heard. A contested order was thereafter passed on May 17, 1995 whereby and whereunder the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- p. m. by way of interim relief. In the said order, it was held that the appellant is an 'industry' and the concerned workman is 'workman' within the meaning of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act.

( 5 ) A writ petition being C. O. No. 12015 (W) of 1995 was filed by the appellant herein questioning the said order. The appellant had prayed for but was not granted any order of stay, as a result whereof, the interim relief granted in favour of the workman by the Tribunal became enforceable. Undaunted, the appellant filed another application for stay which was refused by the 1st respondent and the appellant was directed to comply with the said order. In the mean time the question as regard validity of the domestic enquiry had been taken up. The workman pointed out that the appellant had not complied with order dated May 17, 1995 whereupon the respondent No. 1 asked the appellant to comply with the same within a time frame. The appellant filed an application for further cross-examination of the workman which was dismissed by an order dated July 16, 1995 with a direction to pay costs of Rs. 500/ -. The appellant was further directed to comply with the order dated May 17, 1995. Further opportunities had been granted by the 1st respondent to the appellant to comply with the said order.

( 6 ) THE appellant filed an application for recalling the order dated July 16, 1998 making various allegations against the Presiding Officer. A question was also raised whether in view of the fact that the workman admittedly was occupying a quarter with his brother, the rental payable in respect thereof should be taken into consideration for the purpose of computation of wages defined in Section 2 (rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was stated that the market rent for the said accommodation was Rs. 1,000/- p. m. and on that account, the appellant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- from the workman. The said petition was rejected by an order dated August 10, 1998. Such an order which was mandatory and imperative in character and the same having not been complied with, the appellant filed the second writ application being No. W. P. 16297 (W) of 1999 in this Court questioning both the orders dated July 16, 1998 and August 10, 1998.

( 7 ) YET again the prayer for interim relief was refused by this Court. The 1st respondent thereafter ins