The said order is in challenge before us.
2 dismissal taken against the respondent for number preventing the miscreants from assaulting the Managing Director.
He tendered his reply to the first charge sheet.
On the basis of the findings of the enquiry officer, the respondent was dismissed.
Since the respondent refused to accept the charge sheet, another charge sheet was issued against him.
The Industrial Tribunal dismissed the application thereby declining the approval of the action taken by the appellant.
It was stated in the application that a sum of Rs.4,65,000/ had been paid to the respondent workman vide two cheques, namely, Cheque No.671163 dated 15.5.2004 for an amount of Rs.4,29,285/ and Cheque No.620597 of the same date for an amount of Rs.35,715/ drawable at State Bank of India, Rehla thus making a total of Rs.4,65,000/ towards provident fund dues.
The Management thereafter filed a Letters Patent Appeal.
I.A.No.1072 of 2004 in LPA No.847 of 2003 was filed by the appellant seeking disposal of the LPA in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties.
The Management filed an application under Section 33 2 b of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 seeking approval of the action of A.No.1360/08 Contd.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge.
The respondent failed to take any preventive action against the miscreants.
During the pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A.No.847 of 2003, a settlement was arrived at between the Management and the workman and an application, viz.,
He was found guilty of misconduct.
The explanation offered by him was number found satisfactory and a domestic enquiry was held against him.
O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NO.1359 OF 2008 Arising out of S.L.P. C No.11109 of 2006 Leave granted.
Hence, he raised an industrial dispute and the reference was pending before the Industrial Tribunal.
Consequently, a charge sheet was issued against the respondent for the said act of misconduct.
The respondent was working as a security guard.
Action had been taken against the respondent in an earlier case.
While he was on duty, the Managing Director of the appellant company was assaulted by three workers.
