K. Vinod Chandran, J.

The petitioner is the management and the 2nd respondent, the workman. The challenge raised is against the preliminary order of the Labour Court, at Exhibit P7.

2. The issue referred was, whether the dismissal of the workman was justified or not. The misconducts alleged against the workman were many; but, relevant was only the allegation of having assaulted another workman in a drunken state.

3. The workman specifically contended that the action initiated by the management was a clear act of victimization, especially since; but for the misconduct of assault on 07.04.1991 all other misconducts were alleged to have been committed prior to that, in 1981, 1986 and 1988. The workman also alleged bias on the Enquiry Officer for reason of he having been engaged by the management especially in a case in which the workman was an opposite party. The workman contended that he was the leader of a Trade Union and initiated proceedings for payment of minimum wages, which was contested by the management through the Enquiry Officer, who was their lawyer.

4. The preliminary order passed by the Labour Court found the allegation of bias to be a reasonable one and set aside