This petition was dismissed by the Mysore High Court on September 27, 1957.
This application was opposed by the Workers Union on behalf of the Respondent, Dasappa and it was stated that the allegation of theft made against Dasappa was false and that the finding of the Manager was arbitrary and opposed to the principles of natural justice.
The Industrial Tribunal on a companysideration, of the evidence of the witnesses examined by the Manager and also of two witnesses examined before it, formally recorded its companyclusion in these words Having regard to all the material placed before us we cannot accept the companyclusion of the Manager and we hold that numberprima facie case of theft is established against the respondent with the result that we cannot grant the permission for discharging the respondent.
The appeal filed on the basis of this leave is Appeal No.
Special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution was obtained from this Court on January 13, 1958, by the appellant against the High Courts order.
211 of 1958.
Against this order of dismissal the appellant moved a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the issue of an appropriate writ or directions after quashing the Tribunals order.
Direct evidence as regards this was given before the Manager by one Syed Ameer.
On the same day special leave was also obtained by the appellant against the order of the Industrial Tribunal.
The case which the Manager found proved was that Dasappa who was on duty on the Companys Motor Van on December 23, 1955, was found companying out of the second main gate of the Hebbal Mills with a rug piece, a property of the Company, and then companycealing it under the cushion of the Van.
It was stated in the application that on an information being received that Dasappa had dishonestly removed property belonging to the Company a charge sheet was framed against him and an enquiry held in which on a companysideration of all the evidence the Manager came to the companyclusion that the respondent was guilty of the charge made against him, which justified an order of discharge.
C. Das Gupta, J. On January 1956 when a reference was pending before an Industrial Tribunal of a dispute between the Management of the Bangalore Woollen Cotton and Silk Mills Co., Ltd., the appellant in both the appeals and its workmen, an application was made by the Management under Section 33 of the Indus trial Disputes Act for permission for discharge of Dasappa, the respondent in both the appeals.
