1. Termination of service of the petitioner in 1992, on proven misconduct, upheld by the first respondent/Labour Court in Ext.P1 Award in I.D.No.191 of 1993, is the subject matter involved in this case.

2. Whether non-compliance of the statutory prescription under section 33(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) without obtaining ‘prior permission’ of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court for awarding punishment in respect of a ‘protected workman’ during the pendency of any proceeding before the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court will result in automatic reinstatement and whether the intimation given by the Trade Union, furnishing the list of ‘protected workmen’ to the Management will enable the concerned workman to be recognised as a ‘protected workman’ by the Management, without any positive act of such declaration, are the ‘legal questions’ involved. Whether the petitioner workman is a ‘protected workman’ and whether ‘typing work’ was part of the duty attached to the post of “Commercial Assistant” held by the petitioner at the time of termination of service are the ‘factual disputes’.

3. The petitioner joined service of the second re