An appeal lies to the Labour Appellate Tribunal from the decision of the Industrial Tribunal on a substantial question of law and not on a question of fact.

Judgement

IMAM, J. These appeals by special leave are directed against the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta, which reversed the decision of the Third Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta. The appellant had filed applications under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking permission of the Tribunal to dismiss the respondents in both the appeals, which permission was granted. Against the orders of the Industrial Tribunal the respondents filed appeals before the Labour Appellate Tribunal.

2. The orders of the Industrial Tribunal disclose that the respondents had been warned on several occasions for their bad work and misbehaviour and with respect to some of them for even acts of violence. Thereafter the respondents absented themselves from work without leave on a particular date and for ten subsequent days, which in itself amounted to misconduct involving the penalty, if sought to be imposed, of dismissal under the Standing Orders of the appellant. The respondents explained their absence as involuntary owing to their arrest by the police and applied for leave of absence which was refused.

3. In appeal the Labour Appellate Tribunal was of the opinion that a substantial question of law arose because it thought that the Industrial Tribunal had not applied its mind to the question whether in proposing to dismiss the respondents the appellant was actuated by improper motive or was resorting to unfair labour practice or victimisation, relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Atherton West & Co. Ltd., Kanpur, U. P. v. Suti Mill Mazdoor Union, 1953 S C R 780 : The Appellate Tribunal accordingly entered into the merits and it came to the conclusion that, on the materials on the record, the appellant in proposing to dismiss the respondents was not acting bona fide and the case appeared to be one of victimisation.

4. It was urged on behalf of the appellant that no appeal lay to the Labour Appellate Tribunal as no substantial question of law arose in the appeals filed before it. It was pointed out that the Industrial Tribunal was of the opinion that it could not say that the appellant ought to have condoned the respondents absenting themselves from work if the appellant honestly thought that the respondents had by their past conduct forfeited all claims of leniency and concession and that the appellant could not be blamed if it was not prepared to condone the absence of the respondents.

5. On behalf of the respondents it was pointed out that, having regard to the decision of this Court in the case of Messrs Atherton West & co. Ltd., (A) it was the duty of the Tribunal to enquire and come to the conclusion whether there was a prima facie case made out for the discharge or dismissal of the workmen and that the employer, his agent or manager was not actuated by any improper motive or did not resort to any unfair labour practice or victimisation in the matter of the proposed discharge or dismissal of the workmen. Since the Industrial Tribunal had given no finding that the appellant was not actuated by any improper motive or did not resort to any unfair labour practice or victimisation in the matter of the proposed discharge or dismissal of the respondents, the Labour Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that a substantial, question of law had arisen in the appeal before it. The finding of the Labour Appellate Tribunal that the appellant s action was not bona fide and it was a case of victimisation was a finding of fact. The decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal should accordingly be upheld as no question of law arose in the appeals before us.

6. It is not disputed that an appeal lies to the Labour Appellate Tribunal from the decision of the Industrial Tribunal on a substantial question of law and not on a question of fact. It remains, therefore, to consider whether any substantial question of law arose in the appeals before the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal referred in some detai