Scope and ambit of jurisdiction of Tribunal

This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 30.7.1984 made in application no.80 of 1984 in i.d.no.62 of 1982 on the file of the industrial tribunal, madras the first respondent herein.

2. in the month of october, 1983 it came to light that colossal misappropriation of funds belonging to the petitioner-corporation to the extent of nearly 50 lakhs had been perpetrated. an investigation was conducted into the matter and a special team of auditors were appointed to scrutinise the accounts. it came to light from the said investigation and scrutiny that one mr.m.rajagopalan who was employed as cashier in the head office of the petitioner-corporation at kumbakonam had misused his position and perpetrated the said misappropriation. it further came to light that certain other officials in the head office who had dealings with the accounts had also to be proceeded against for their part in enabling such a fraud to be committed. the second respondent was employed as a senior superintendent in the head office of the petitioner-corporation. according to the petitioner, the duties entrusted to him include the responsibility for the completion of the statutory audit as well as accountant general’s audit. pursuant to the investigation and scrutiny of the accounts, the second respondentas well as three others were individually charge sheeted for the acts of misconduct alleged against them. the charge sheet dated 30.11.1983 was issued to the 2nd respondent herein in the course of which it was alleged that he had failed to reconcile the accounts particularly with reference to a sum of rs.21 lakhs and odd which were shown as cash in transit as on 33. 1983. it was also alleged that the second respondent had not checked the fundamental records and was negligent in the discharge of his duties. it was further alleged in the charge memo that he helped the said rajagopalan by allowing him to operate bank account in his name. the 2nd respondent submitted an explanation dated 12. 1983. the explanation offered by the second respondent not being satisfactory, a domestic enquiry was directed to be conducted into the charges levelled against him in the charge memo. shri k.p.madhavachariya, retired first class magistrate was appointed an enquiry officer. the enquiry was conducted against the 2nd respondent and three others who were all working in the accounts department of the petitioner-corporation. on the basis of the evidence recorded in the domestic enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted a report in which he held that the charges levelled against the 2nd respondent have been proved. accepting the said findings and on the basis of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, the petitioner-corporation terminated the employment of the second respondent by the order dated 53.1984. since i.d.no.63 of 1982 pursuant to the demand for bonus for the year 1982-83 was pending before the first respondent, an application was filed under sec.33(2)(b) of the industrial disputes act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the act’) in petition no.80 of 1984 for approval of the action of dismissal taken against the 2nd respondent. after enquiry the 1st respondent passed the order dated 30.7.1984 in petition no.80 of 1984 in and by which he has refused the approval asked for and dismissed the petition no.80 of 1984. aggrieved by the order of the first respondent dismissing the petition no.80 of 1984, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the said order.

3. mr.s.ravi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended as follows: while dealing with the application for approval under sec.33(2)(b) of the act, the first respondent tribunal is exercising only a very limited jurisdiction and that he has to see only whether the principles of natural justice have been observed and whether there is a prima facie case for the action taken by the management. in an enquiry under sec.33(2) (b) of