1. The petitioner stated that the action taken or proposed to be taken by the management is an act of victimisation and that the Tribunal, while considering the question of grant or refusal of leave under Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act should have gone into that question and expressed its opinion. In one place the Tribunal has considered certain circumstances and felt that the punishment proposed might be regarded as excessive. Even so, having regard to the limited jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 33(2) of the Act, it rightly confined itself to that jurisdiction. I can, therefore, see no error of jurisdiction or other error apparent on the face of the order of the Industrial Tribunal.
2. If the petitioner feels aggrieved on the ground of victimisation, the proper remedy is not by way of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the Industrial Tribunal, under Section 33(2). The petition is dismissed.