I think that it is very difficult to provide a concrete answer to your query either way from your cryptic narration. Though an Industrial Tribunal is not a Court, its powers are wider than that of a Civil Court in respect of the matters referred for its decision. However, no IT can travel beyond the scope of the issues referred to it. If any question of Law is involved in the decision of the IT, the aggrieved party can invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8th June 2018 From India, Salem
Unless untill we know the case and verdict passed there upon, is difficult to say whether the order passed can be challenged or not.
You can challenge the order on ground of your "terms" aginst which a judgement is passed. You need to arrange all such documents in support of your POINTS which has got sanctitiy in the eye of law but ignored by the IT.
In my sugestion if you can share the case and order, our learned members of the forum can guide or suggest suitably.
Mr. Umakanthan M, one of senior most counsel rightly pointed out the flaw reamins in your posting. Is any advocate put for the case? If yes, what is his views over the matter. Hope you will able to understand the view put by me.
9th June 2018 From India, Mumbai
The Supreme Court has clearly held that after the introduction of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act with effect from 15.12.1971, the CGIT cum LC has the power of an Appellate Court and it can also re-appreciate the evidence and come to different conclusion if the situation so warrants. The earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited and another v. Workmen, AIR 1958 SC 130 was specifically held to be not holding the field in view of the introduction of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The scope of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act came to be explained by the Supreme Court in Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. v. Management,  1 SCC 813 : 1973 I LLJ 278. The Supreme Court in the said judgment has observed as follows: .. The words in the course of the adjudication proceeding, the Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified clearly indicate that the Tribunal is now clothed with the power to reappraise the evidence in the domestic enquiry and satisfy itself whether the said evidence relied on by an employer establishes the misconduct alleged against a workman. What was originally a plausible conclusion that could be drawn by an employer from the evidence, has now given place to a satisfaction being arrived at by the Tribunal that the finding of misconduct is correct. The limitations imposed on the powers of the Tribunal by the decision in Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. case, can no longer be invoked by an employer. The Tribunal is now at liberty to consider not only whether the finding of misconduct recorded by an employer is correct, but also to differ from the said finding if a proper case is made out. What was once largely in the realm of the satisfaction of the employer, has ceased to be so, and now it is the satisfaction of the Tribunal that finally decides the matter.
To come to a conclusion either way, the Tribunal will have to re-appraise the evidence for itself. Ultimately it may hold that the misconduct itself is not proved or that the misconduct proved does not warrant the punishment of dismissal or discharge.
In other words, the Tribunal may hold that the proved misconduct does not merit punishment by way of discharge or dismissal. It can, under such circumstances, award to the workman only lesser punishment instead. The power to interfere with the punishment and alter the same has been now conferred on the Tribunal by Section 11-A.
From the above it is very clear that the CGIT has been bestowed extensive powers in interfering with the decision of the employer in disciplinary and other service matters and the remedy against its decision lies before the High Court under its extra Ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 or supervisory jurisdiction under 227 of our Constitution. To invoke Article 226 there has to be substantial irregularity in the procedure adopted by the Tribunal causing grave prejudice to you and in proceeding as per Article 227 issues like factual error, legal error or inadequate appreciation of evidence could be tried.
9th June 2018 From India, Mumbai