The Industrial Tribunal's jurisdiction in granting or refusing approval is limited to determining whether a prima facie case has been made out and whether there is violation of natural justice in the domestic enquiry.

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 first respondent, Industrial Tribunal, Kollam, as I.D. 41 of 1982. Therefore, under the proviso to S.33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Dispute Act Ext. P-5 application was filed by the petitioner for approval of the action dismissing the 2nd respondent. By Ext. P-6 order approval was refused. This original petition is to quash Ext. P-6.

3. The reasons which weighed with the Industrial Tribunal for refusing approval are (1) Though there was no presenting officer for the Management and the complainant himself acted as the presenting officer and prosecutor he was allowed to be assisted by one Dayanandan. Complainant and Dayanandan examined the Management witness and cross examined the defence witnesses. This is violation of the principles of natural justice which caused serious prejudice to the 2nd respondent. (2) The defence witness was disbelieved for the simple reason that he was witness for the 2nd respondent in an earlier occasion. His evidence was not objectively assessed and the finding was on the interested testimony of the complainant. (3) Drunkenness which was one of the charges was accepted on the basis of circumstantial evidence without any medical evidence, and (4). On one of the charges of dereliction of duty the explanation giddiness offered by the 2nd respondent was not considered.

4. I am not going into the evidence or express any opinion except saying that the approach made by the Industrial Tribunal is perverse ' in relation to his powers under S.33(2)(b). That provision is intended only as a protection to the worker against victimisation and unfair labour practice. First respondent, unaware of the restriction on his powers, acted as an appellate authority and reappraised the evidence to disagree with the enquiry officer on his findings recorded on the evidence. When an application under S.33, whether for approval or for permission, is made to the Tribunal it has initially only a limited jurisdiction; to see whether a prima facie case is made out in respect of the misconduct charged. This is the position only when the domestic enquiry preceding the order of dismissal is free from any defect, that is to say, free from the vice of violation of the principles of natural justice or otherwise. If there is violation of the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal will have to give the employer an opportunity of adducing evidence, if any, and also to the workman to rebut it if he chooses. In that event the Tribunal will be free to come to his own conclusions on the merits of the evidence with regard to proof of misconduct charged. In such a contingency, consideration of prima facie case alone is not the criterion. That is because the employer's findings in the domestic enquiry will lapse and will be substituted by the conclusions of the Industrial