The main legal point established in the judgment is that the demand for a mandamus was premature and misconceived, and the principles of natural justice should be followed in the conduct of the enquiry.

The prayer is for a mandamus to direct the respondents to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's latest representation dated 10-12-2002 and conduct de novo enquiry in regard to the allegations against the petitioner at Hosur in Tamil Nadu or in any other place at Tamil Nadu in the petitioner's mother tongue Tamil.

2. The facts as set out in the affidavit in support of the writ petition are as follows:

The petitioner had completed X Standard. He was appointed as Operator L-1 in the third respondent company on 22-9-1995 at Hosur. He had been serving in his capacity as Operator with unblemished record. There was Section 18(1) Settlement under I.D. Act between the Management and the Trade Union at Hosur Factory. The petitioner is one of the beneficiaries. He is continuously paying the subscription to the Trade Union INTUC, TVS Employees Union, Hosur, every quarter in a year since 22-9-1995. He is well-versed only in Tamil. Though he can speak Hindi, he does not know to read and write. His knowledge in English is also not fluent. He is restricted only to sign in English. The Union placed charges of demand for the enhancement of salary at Hosur. The petitioner's salary is based upon Madras Price Index. By communication dated 5-11-2001 the management has reiterated that his original terms and conditions of appointment stand unaltered. The petitioner contributed his signature in the Union, which is not to the liking of the Management. The Management purported to transfer him from Hosur, Tamil Nadu, to Pune, vide Ref.PER/392, dated 4-4-1998. He joined the Pune Ware-House on 18-4-1998. Though his original appointment was as Operator L.1, he was made to work without any designation, assigned odd jobs like Telephone Attender, Despatch Clerk, attending to drawing of moneys from Bank and deposits of cheques, filing of correspondence in the office and other menial works. Ignoring the petitioner's experience as Operator L-1, his transfer to Pune to attend odd jobs is more by way of punishment. It was not a routine transfer. However, he continued in the transferred place at Pune. Ever since his transfer to Pune, the petitioner has been making repeated written requests for retransfer to Hosur. There has been no response to his requests. However, on 19.9.2002 the third respondent issued show cause notice levelling certain charges inter alia stating that he used an unparliamentary word in Hindi against one contract labour by name Sachin at Pune. Show cause notice had been issued from Hosur, Tamil Nadu, to the petitioner's Pune address. He submitted his explanation on 21-8-2002. The third respondent appointed the fourth respondent as Enquiry Officer to conduct a domestic enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner has been making repeated requests to conduct the enquiry in Tamil, in which he is well-versed since he is not able to follow the proceedings in English having very limited knowledge. Further, some of the communications were sent by the Enquiry Officer in Marati, which the petitioner does not know. His request has not at all been considered. He was subjected to great hardship and trouble. He has to spend money to have the assistance of English knowing persons to read the communications and even to send reply. Since he is not fully conversant in English, he is not in a position to ascertain himself whether what he wanted to convey had been properly translated into English. The petitioner is undergoing mental agony, anguish and irreparable injury by such proceedings conducted in English and communication sent in Marati. The petitioner is denied a fair enquiry. Principles of natural justice are not applied in the proceedings. During the proceedings, except the petitioner, everybody was conversing only in Marati and the petitioner has to watch the proceedings like a deaf and dumb person. Due to the communication gap, he is not able to effectively represent himself. He is also denied to engage an Ad