The words "pending enquiry" in Clause 27 of the Standing Orders refer only to the employer's enquiry and not to the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Judgment

WANCHOO, J. : This is an appeal by special leave against the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India in an industrial matter. The appellant is the Ranipur Colliery (hereinafter called the company) which carries on the business of coal mining in Dishergarh (West Bengal). The respondents are six workmen employed by the company. They along with another person were working as tub-checkers. It was found that they were making false reports both as to quality and quantity of coal, which it was their duty to check, with the result that the company suffered loss. Consequently, the company served charge-sheets on them and a regular enquiry was held on 13-4-l955, at which they were present and had full opportunity to give their explanation, cross-examine witnesses and generally contest the charge. The company came to the conclusion after the enquiry that the workmen were guilty of the misconduct with which they were charged and should be dismissed. As, however, an industrial dispute between the company and its workmen was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, the company applied under S. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called the Act) for permission to dismiss the workmen., It appears that five out of seven workmen filed two applications under S. 33-A of the Act before the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that they had been suspended without pay from 4-5-1955, and that this was against the provision of the Standing Orders governing their conditions of service. These three applications were heard together by the Industrial Tribunal, which came to the conclusion that the permission should be granted to the company to dismiss the seven workmen and accordingly did so. Having granted this permission, the Industrial Tribunal, in consequence, dismissed the applications under S. 33-A.

2. Six of the workmen then went up in appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal against the grant of permission to dismiss and the dismissal of their applications under S. 33-A. Their case was (i) that no permission to dismiss should have been granted, and (ii) that five of them had been placed under suspension without wages for an indefinite period in, violation of the express provision of the Standing Orders and therefore they were entitled to relief. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal with respect to the grant of permission to dismiss. It, however, came to the conclusion that there was a breach of cl. 27 of the Standing Orders, and therefore allowed the appeal of five workmen (other than Akhey Roy), who had applied under S. 33-A. and ordered that they should be paid their wages from the date of suspension without pay to the date of the Industrial Tribunal s order, less ten days as provided in cl. 27 of the Standing Orders. Thereupon the company applied to this Court for special leave which was granted; and that is now the matter has come before us.

3. It appears that Akhey Roy has been unnecessarily joined as a respondent for the order of the Appellate Tribunal does not show that any relief was granted to him and his appeal to the Appellate Tribunal must therefore be taken to have been dismissed.

4. Thus the only point that falls for consideration is whether suspension without pay pending permission of the Industrial Tribunal under S. 33 of the Act is a breach of Cl. 27 of the Standing Orders. The brief facts necessary in this connection are these: Seven workmen were served with charge-sheets on 1-4-1955. After their replies had been received, an enquiry was held on 13-5. 1955 and they were found guilty of misconduct. It was decided thereupon to apply for permission for their dismissal under S. 33 of the Act. The application was made to the Tribunal on 29-4-55. Thereafter the workmen were suspended on 4-5-1955 without pay pending orders of the Industrial Tribunal.

5. Clause 27 of the Standing Orders, on which reliance has been placed, reads thus--

"An employee may be suspended, fined or dismissed without notice or any compe