R.N. Misra, J.
1. The opposite party No. 1 was employed as a time-keeper under the petitioner. On February 9, 1970 the opposite party No. 1 delivered the attendance cards to the Supervisor about three hours before the due time resulting in the workers leaving their duty earlier on receipt of the cards. The delinquent admitted his guilt in writing during preliminary enquiry. He was later on charge-sheeted and in his explanation he admitted the guilt. On September 24, 1970, the employer dismissed the opposite party No. 1 from service following the domestic enquiry. An application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act was made to the Tribunal. Some evidence was led before the Tribunal and on May 14, 1971, the Tribunal heard arguments of parties and reserved orders but no date was notified. On May 28, 1971, orders were passed by the Tribunal holding that the domestic enquiry was vitiated and he directed the management to adduce evidence on merits of the case by posting the case to June 22, 1971.
2. On that day as there was no appearance on behalf of the management, the Tribunal dismissed the petition. On June 30, 1971, the petitioner applied for restoration. The opposite party No. 1 was noticed to show cause against restoration and on August 14, 1971, the application was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that the case having been disposed of, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain a review petition, On December 14, 1971, this writ application has been filed.
3. It has been decided by this Court in the case of Management of the Dhenkanal Municipality, Dhenkanal v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Orissa Bhubaneshwar and Ors. (1971) 1 C.W.R. 618, that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to restore a case disposed by it. Thus, the view taken by the Tribunal that it had no jurisdiction to reopen the matter is contrary to law. The application must be sent back to the Tribunal to be dealt with on its own merits as to whether there was sufficient: cause for the order dated June 22, 1971 to be vacated and the application under Section 33(2)(b) should be restored for further consideration.
4. Mr. Nanda for the employer says that he has also applied to the Tribunal for reconsidering the view taken in its order dated May 28, 1971. We express no opinion and leave it to the Tribunal to deal with any application made to it as stated by Mr. Nanda.
5. The order dated August 14, 1971 is accordingly quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari. The application for restoration along with any other application as indicated above shall now go back to the Tribunal to be dealt with in accordance with law. We make no order as to costs.
K.B. Panda, J.
6. I agree.