Y. VENKATACHALAM, J.

In these writs since the parties to the litigation and also the subject-matter involved are one and the same, both the matters were taken up together and are disposed of by this common order with the consent of the parties concerned.

Invoking Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners herein have filed the present writ petitions seeking for a writ of ceritorari to call for the records connected with the award of the first respondent, dated January 20, 1992, made in I. D. No. 44 of 1988 and to quash the same in W. P. No. 18780 of 1982 and to call for the records connected with the order of the first respondent, dated January 20, 1992, made in C. P. No. 1077 of 1986 and to quash the same in W. P. No. 18781 of 1992.

In support of the writ petitions, the petitioners herein have filed separate affidavits wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petitions and requested this Court to allow the writ petitions as prayed for. Per contra, the second respondent herein has filed separate affidavits justifying the award and order passed by the first respondent and ultimately requested this Court to dismiss these writ petitions for want of merits.

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have perused the contents of the affidavits and the counter-affidavits together with all other relevant material documents available on record in the form of typed set of papers. I have also taken into consideration the various points raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties during the course of their arguments.

In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the only common point that arises for consideration in these cases, is as to whether there are any valid grounds to allow this writ petition or not.The brief facts of the case of the petitioners as seen from their affidavits are as follows : The petitioner is a public limited company and is engaged inter alia in the manufacture of dyes and chemicals for leather industry. The petitioner has a factory at Walajahpet where such chemicals, dyes are manufactured for the leather industry. The second respondent herein was appointed by the petitioner as a Research and Development Manager on June 1, 1982. The second respondent was appointed in the managerial cadre and he was entitled to certain privileges and perquisites like house rent allowance, provision of the telephone in his residence, leave travel assistance as available to the management cadre. The second respondent's job as a Research and Development Manager was :

a) to promote and project the company's image;

b) to create new products as per management's guidelines;

c) to continuously investigate and identify alternative materials for substitution in existing product range in order to achieve economy in production, enhanced productivity and increased profitability;

d) to find remedies for existing problems in order to improve quality and efficiency;

e) to institute and implement control measures for maintaining quality of incoming raw materials, and outgoing finished products.

Apart from this, the second respondent also had to recommend new products in developments and other allied matters. The second respondent who was entrusted with the above Work never came up to the expectation of the petitioner. The second respondent who was recruited mainly for developing new products did not develop even a single product. When the petitioner found that the second respondent failed to contribute anything to the petitioner-company, the petitioner was constrained to dispense with the services of the second respondent. The second respondent was called for a discussion on January 28, 1985, when his performance was analysed and his failures pointed out and the management's decision to dispense with his services was conveyed to the second respondent. The second respondent, however, requested time to