1. Second respondent is an employee under the petitioner. A co-worker by name Ravindran Nair filed a complaint against him. Second respondent was charge sheeted by Ext, P-l under four counts. A domestic enquiry followed. Ravindran Nair, the de facto complainant, himself prosecuted the enquiry. Second respondent says that Ravindran Nair was assisted by a co-worker Dayanandan as the Presenting Officer but the petitioner denies this fact. Second respondent was also allowed to be assisted in the enquiry by a union leader. Ravindran Nair and another employee were examined as witnesses by the Management. Ravindran Nair was not cross examined ,but the other witnesses was cross examined. Second respondent examined himself and another witness-Ext- P-2 is the enquiry proceedings and Ext. P-3 is the enquiry report. All the four charges were found proved-Management accepted the report and issued Ext. P-4 show cause notice why second respondent should not be dismissed. Cause shown was found not acceptable. Second respondent was dismissed on 18th March 1986.

2. An industrial dispute concerning the petitioner but unconnected with the 2nd respondent was at that time pending before the firs