The Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 33 is limited to assessing whether a prima facie case for dismissal exists, without reassessing evidence or findings from the domestic inquiry.

JUDGMENT :

BIREN VAISHNAV, J.

1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been filed by the appellant – workman on being aggrieved by the oral judgment dated 08.01.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge by the oral judgment under challenge, allowed the petition of the employer and quashed and set aside the order dated 04.08.2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal at Nadiad, in Permission Application (IT) No. 1 of 2000, whereby the Tribunal had rejected the employer’s application seeking to terminate the services of the appellant.

2. The factual background has been set out by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 2 to 2.9 of the order and therefore we reproduce the same so as to avoid repetition and unnecessarily burden the record of this appeal. Paras 2 to 2.9 read as under:

“2. The factual background which led to the submission of said permission application and the subsequent proceeding is that present respondent was working as Technician Grade-II at Vanakbori Thermal Power Station. According to the petitioner certain complaints and allegations against the respondent workman were received and the said allegations amounted to serious misconduct as per rules of the company.

2.1 Therefore, the respondent was visited with a chargesheet dated 25.5.1999 wherein 4 charge were levelled against the respondent workman. The charge levelled against the respondent workman vide said chargesheet dated 25.5.1999 read thus:- 1. Leaving H.Q. without prior permissions. 2. Fraud, tempering with official documents, breach of trust, dishonesty in connection with the affairs of the board. 3. Instances of disloyalty to the Board. 4. Action on the part of the employees involving moral turpitude.

2.2 In pursuance of the said chargesheet dated 25.5.1999 Chief Administrative Officer (retired) of the petitioner company was appointed as Inquiry Officer.

2.3 The Inquiry Officer conducted proceedings in pursuance of the chargesheet dated 25.5.1999 which were commenced w.e.f. 28.12.1999. During the proceedings the petitioner led documentary and oral evidence before Inquiry Officer whereas the respondent submitted his defence statement however, he did not examine any witness to support his case. He also did not offer himself as witness and did not get his statement recorded. The proceedings were concluded on 11.3.2000. Subsequently Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 18.3.2000.

2.4 After considering the material on record, the Inquiry Officer recorded his findings holding, inter alia, that the charge at serial No. 1 and 4 are not proved whereas the charge at serial No. 2 and 3 are proved.

2.5 Thereafter, considering the report of the Inquiry Officer second show-cause notice dated 19.7.2000 was issued and respondent workman's explanation and response as to the findings of the Inquiry Officer and proposed penalty was called for. The respondent workman submitted his reply dated 8.8.2000.

2.6 Then, after considering material on record, the inquiry report and relevant factors like gravity of charge, the misconduct and past record etc. the disciplinary authority considered it appropriate to terminate the respondent's service.

2.7 However, since above mentioned Reference No. 726 of 1998 was pending wherein the respondent workman was concerned, application seeking permissions as contemplated under Section 33 came to be filed by the petitioner company. The application seems to have been filed on or around 8.9.2000 and was registered as Permission Application No. 1 of 2000 in Reference (IT) No. 726 of 1998. The respondent workman opposed the permission application.

2.8 The petitioner company placed on record of the learned tribunal the record of domestic inquiry and other connected and relevant material.

2.9 After considering the record of the inquiry and other material placed on record of the permission application and upon considering the submissions by learned advocate for the parties, learned tribunal rejected the permission appli