I. S. MEHTA, J.

1. The present petitioner, i.e., Hotel Taj Palace (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-management) has preferred the present Writ Petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 19.12.2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the learned Labour Court/Industrial Adjudicator) in O.P. No. 568/1993.

2. The brief facts stated are that the respondent-workman, i.e., Shri Ravi Rohilla, was appointed as General Tradesman w.e.f. 02.07.1985 on a monthly salary of Rs. 2631.50 per month with the petitioner-management. The petitioner-management on finding him absent from his duty for a period of 84 days on 43 occasions which is violative of service condition rules clause 31 (i) (42), i.e., Habitual absence without leave and absence without leave for more than seven consecutive days, issued a show cause notice dated 07.09.1992 to the respondent-workman. The petitioner-management after going through the explanation given by the respondent-workman dated 12.10.1992 did not find the reply satisfactory and initiated the inquiry proceedings against him. Thereafter, the inquiry officer submitted his report dated 15.10.1993 and held the respondent-workman guilty of the misconduct of unauthorised absence of 67 days during the period September, 1991 to August, 1992. The petitioner-management concurring the finding of the inquiry officer proceeded with dismissal order dated 19.11.1993 by moving an approval application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the learned Industrial Adjudicator in presence of a pending industrial dispute, i.e., I.D. No. 6/1992 between the management and the Union of workers of the management. The petitioner-management had remitted one month’s wages to the respondent-workman vide money order receipts No. 0942 and 0943 dated 18.11.1993. However, the respondent-workman denied the allegations so put forward against him by the petitioner-management.

3. On the pleadings before the learned Industrial Adjudicator, the preliminary issue, i.e., “Whether the applicant held a proper inquiry against the respondent?(OPA)” was framed and after giving fair opportunities to both the parties, the said issue was decided in favour of the petitioner-management and against the respondent-workman on 23.04.2003.

4. The learned Industrial Adjudicator thereafter, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, further framed two issues, i.e.,

“(1) Whether the applicant remitted full one month’s wage to respondent as per provision of Section 33(2)(b) of the I. D. Act?

(2) Relief.”

and the leaned Industrial Adjudicator after giving fair opportunity of evidence on the aforesaid issues to both the parties passed the impugned order dated 19.12.2003. Hence, giving rise to the present Writ Petition.

5. The petitioner-management aggrieved from the impugned order dated 19.12.2003 passed by the learned Industrial Adjudicator has filed the present Writ Petition on the following grounds:-

I. The impugned order is perverse and contrary to law.

II. The respondent-workman was dismissed from the service on 19.11.1993 after complying with all the legal provisions simultaneously forming part of the same transaction.

III. The learned Industrial Adjudicator having found that the domestic inquiry conducted by the management was fair and proper should have accorded the approval of the petitioner-management’s action.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner-management has submitted that the issue of inquiry was decided by the learned Industrial Adjudicator in favour of the petitioner-management. However, the learned Industrial Adjudicator went wrong in holding that compliance of full one month’s wages has not been paid as per Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

7. The learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner-management has further pointed out that one mo