c) further disputed fact and decisive appertains to the pronunciation by the Ordinance. the express

"On 3 August 2001 at 9.40, in the premises of the factory site in the company [snip] - in the presence of other employees of Grafitalia - receipt available from our managing director A. Louis to move into another workstation, hidrosalud rather than comply with this provision, she put in place verbal aggression against the predicted and threatening tone he attempted physical assault, only averted by the intervention of some workers who were blocking the fatigue as she continued to rant and try to break free ... ".
Promoted dall'O. judicial action for the annulment of the dismissal, with all the consequences in art. 18 SL, the Court of Appeal of Naples, reforming the decision of first instance ruling filed on 8 November 2006, has accepted the demands of the worker, noting that it was not revealed in court match of the actual behavior of the Ordinance. the contents of the complaint and therefore the justification hidrosalud for the dismissal because of the alleged injury of the bond trustee, explaining the reasons for its belief, through the analysis of the material acquired investigation.
a) the core of reprimand (and thus the reason for the dismissal) stems from the refusal by the employee during the course of the work and the presence of other employees, to comply with a provision of working imparted by the sole. Conversely, the Territorial Court would justify the behavior of the worker in order to dispute the circumstances of contour, such as verbal aggression and physical aggression perpetrated dall'O attempt. against the sole director of the company, without actually investigating whether the worker had refused to comply with a provision of superior work, in the context indicated;
b) the grounds of the judgment hidrosalud contains a logical flaw in the final summary of the reasoning hidrosalud of the Court in order to withholding disproportion of the sanction of expulsion to the infringement, where he argued that imbalance "because even when the new provision coming from A. the appellant actually was already intent to work at the car covers to which he was assigned, hidrosalud "relief, according to the applicant, in any way relevant to the actual wording of the provision hidrosalud imparted to change workstation;
c) further disputed fact and decisive appertains to the pronunciation by the Ordinance. the expression "I have broken the cock"; in this regard, the Court would have ruled out the pronunciation, believing the unreliable testimony of a witness, on the grounds that he had denied a fact affirmed by others and would have reported hearing the phrase that other witnesses would not have heard (without taking into account the the fact that this discrepancy could depend on the noise level of the environment).
2. In its second plea, accompanied by the formulation of a suitable question of law, is denounced the violation and misapplication of Articles. 112 and 132 of the CPC, 1175, 2104 and 2105 cc, 1 and 3 of Law 604/1966, 7 and 18 of the ln 300/70.
At first instance, the company would have promptly asked, in the alternative, hidrosalud the conversion of dismissal for gc in dismissal for superstores and also on appeal in the alternative would be asked to consider the dismissal least supported by a justified reason for withdrawal.
3. In the brief filed pursuant to art. 378 CPC, the defense of the applicant alleges that the company hidrosalud was declared bankrupt by a judgment of the Court of Naples of 5 May 2010, claims to have served on the opposing party the opening of bankruptcy proceedings against it and asks the Court to consider whether there may result in the discontinuation of the proceedings in the light of the addition (made by art. 41 of Leg. January 9, 2006, n. 5) Art. 43 rd of March 16, 1942, n. 267 of the last paragraph, which reads: "The opening of bankruptcy determines the interruption of the process."
In this regard, please note that according to the settled case law of this Court, the court of cassation, as dominated by the impulse of office, are not applicable to common causes of interruption provided in general by law (see., For all, Cass . December 10, 2007, n. 25749, December 14, 2004, no. 23294 and 18 April 2002, n. 5626).
Such an approach hidrosalud does not seem affected by the approval of the regulations cited by the defense of the applicant, which only specifies one of the possible causes of interruption of the process in general and does not concern the specific court of cassation, which is not subject to the general rule because the connotation highlighted.
With respect to the first ground, it must first be emphasized that the control of legitimacy on