This appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 11-3-2005 in W.P. Nos. 32819 and 32820 of 2002 (in Management of M/s. Indian Aluminium Company Limited, Belgaum vs. S. Nagaiah 2005 AIR Kar. HCR 1150), dismissing the writ petitions filed by the petitioner/appellant.

Factual background:

2. To appreciate the controversy raised in this appeal, few relevant facts may be noted:

Appellant is a company engaged in manufacturing activities. Respondent was an employee of the appellant and at the relevant point of time, he was one of the Vice-Presidents of the Workers' Union. Charge-sheets dated 14-4-1980 and 29-4-1980 were issued to the respondent alleging acts of misconduct, to which, he submitted separate explanations, which were not accepted by the appellant and domestic enquiries were ordered, after holding of which, the Enquiry Officer submitted reports, holding the respondent guilty of certain charges. Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 8-7-1980 was issued to the respondent, proposing the punishment of dismissal from service, to which, he submitted a reply dated 11-7-1980, whereupon, final order was passed by the disciplinary authority, imposing the punishment of dismissal from service, with effect from 15-7-1980. An industrial dispute pertaining to the justification or otherwise of the lock out declared by the appellant-management was pending at that point of time before the Industrial Tribunal (Tribunal' for short) in I.D. No. 8 of 1980 (renumbered as I.D. No. 17 of 1983) and hence the appellant filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act' for short) seeking express permission to dismiss the respondent from service, with effect from 15-7-1980. Said application was registered as Sl. Appl. No. 64/80 in the Tribunal and after its transfer to the Tribunal at Hubli, it was renumbered as Serial Application No. 26 of 1983. The Tribunal framed a preliminary issue regarding the validity of the domestic enquiry held by the appellant and passed an order on 30-6-1986, setting aside the domestic enquiry on two grounds: (1) The respondent had not been afforded a reasonable opportunity; and (2) The charge-sheets had not been issued by the Competent Authority. Management was however, permitted to justify the proposed action. Management filed W.P. No. 13956 of 1986 challenging the said order. Respondent also filed W.P. No. 17231 of 1986, insofar as the order related to the granting of permission to the management to lead fresh evidence. Writ petition filed by the respondent was rejected on 14-10-1986 (in (1996)69 FJR 369). Respondent filed W.A. No. 3322 of 1986. The Division Bench disposed of the matters, by a common order dated 10-7-1990 holding that, the charge-sheets have been issued by the Competent Authority, but, confirmed the order of the Tribunal setting aside the domestic enquiry (in S. Nagaiah vs. Management of Indian Aluminium Company Limited ILR.1990 Kar. 2744 (DB)).

2.1 Thereafter, appellant adduced common evidence in respect of both the charge-sheets, by examining 13 witnesses (A.Ws. 1 to 13) and produced the documents, which were marked as Exs. A. 1 to A. 79. The witnesses were cross-examined. Respondent got himself examined as a witness. The Tribunal after hearing arguments, allowed the applications by a common order dated 15-9-1997, granting permission to the appellant to dismiss the respondent from service with effect from 15-7-1980.

2.2 Subsequently, respondent raised an industrial dispute by filing a petition under Section 10(4-A) read with Section 2-A of the Act, challenging the order of dismissal dated 15-7-1980. Labour Court framed 4 issues and subsequently an additional issue. By consent of parties, the order passed in Serial Application No. 26 of 1983, dated 15-9-1997 was marked as Ex. M. 1. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal passed an order dated 7-3-2002 (Annexure-F) answering the additional issue in the negative.

3. Being aggriev