IMPORTANT POINTS
even if an employer has held no enquiry or if the enquiry held by him is found to be defective, the Tribunal in order to satisfy itself about the legality and validity of the order, has to give an opportunity to the employer and employee to adduce evidence before it. It is open to the employer to adduce evidence for the first time justifying his action, and it is open to the employee to adduce evidence contra.

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

1. Petitioner Surendran Nair is a workman in BPCL-Kochi Refinery. On 16.10.2015, Surendran, while on duty, involved in an altercation-verbal abuse, as the employer terms it-with two other employees. Surendran submitted the Ext.Pl complaint with the management, so did Sajeevakumar, one of the two other workmen. He filed the Ext.P2 complaint on the same day. The allegation is that the petitioner abused him in his caste name.

2. The dispute, then, spilled over from workplace to the public arena: the police station. The petitioner lodged the Ext.P4 FIR with the police, under Sections 34 and 294 (b) of IPC. Sajeevakumar, too, lodged an FIR against the petitioner under Sections 294(b) and 506(1), read with Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. Crime No.852/2015, registered at Surendran's behest, ended in acquittal. It was on the ground that the alleged incident occurred at a place that cannot be termed a "public place". In Sajeevakumar's case against Surendran, this Court stayed it. Finally, through the Ext.P33 judgment, dt.06.02.2018, this Court allowed Surendran to plead for discharge after the committal proceedings.

4. But departmentally, the employer went ahead, subjected Surendran to disciplinary proceedings. It issued the Ext.P12 show-cause notice to Surendran, who replied through the Ext.P13. Later, the Ext.P14 charge-sheet led to an inquiry. Eventually, through the Ext.P36 punishment order, dt.06.03.2018, Surendran was "dismissed from the services of the Company with immediate effect."

5. Aggrieved, Surendran filed this writ petition. Indeed, he has taken numerous pleas on merits about why his removal cannot be sustained under law.

6. Earlier this Court issued notice and, on the employer's appearance, it has taken up the matter for disposal because of the urgency the petitioner's counsel has pleaded.

7. When Sri Ravindran, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, began to submit on the merits, Sri Cama, the learned Senior Counsel for Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., (BPCL), raised a preliminary objection: the writ petition is not maintainable. And the maintainability concerns the alternative remedy.

8. So to sustain the preliminary objection, Sri Cama has led the arguments.

Submissions:

BPCL's:

9. Sri Cama, the learned Senior Counsel for BPCL, has contended that the Industrial Disputes Act (ID Act) is a complete code by itself. According to him, it has provided for both the right and the remedy. The ID Act, he continues, has set out an elaborate adjudicatory mechanism. Illustratively, the learned Senior Counsel has drawn my attention to Section 11A of the ID Act. With reference to that Section, he stresses that it gives a second opportunity for the management to lead evidence and cure any procedural defect that may have crept in.

10. Sri Cama refers to one of the grounds the petitioner has pleaded: the denial of principles of natural justice. Then, he contends that the allegation is a matter of evidence. In other words, the employee must establish before the Tribunal how the natural justice was denied and, by that, what prejudice was caused.

11. Indeed, for a few months by now-close to a year-the Industrial Tribunal has not been in session for want of the presiding officer. Sri Cama addresses this issue too. According to him, even before his approaching the industrial Tribunal, Surendran must first raise an industrial dispute. After that, if the grievance remains, Surendran should approach the industrial Tribunal, assailing the employer's action.

12. Referring to the broad contours of the Article 226 of the Constitution, Sri Cama asserts that judicial review in the departmental proceedings is extremely limited. He has also taken me through a few of the grounds Surendran has pleaded. According to him, most of the grounds raised are disputed questions, and this Court, in summary adjudication, cannot grant any relief over them.

13. Eventually