The jurisdiction of an industrial tribunal under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is limited to determining whether a prima facie case for dismissal has been made out by the employer, and that it cannot substitute its judgment in the matter of punishment.

Judgment

GEJENDRAGADKAR, J. : This appeal by special leave arises from an application made by M/s. Caltex (India) Ltd., (hereinafter called the appellant) under S. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) against its 23 workmen represented by the Madras Kerosene Oil Workers Union (hereinafter called the respondent) for permission to dismiss them from their service. It would be convenient to set out very briefly the material facts leading to this application. It appears that the Govt. of Madras had referred a dispute concerning workmen and managements of the three Oil Companies, viz., The Burmah-Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Co. Ltd., the Standard Vacuum Oil Co. Ltd., and the appellant, operating in that area. The issue which was thus referred for adjudication related to the payment of bonus for the years 1951-52. The workmen had applied for interim relief and interim relief was awarded by the tribunal to the workmen of the first two companies but not to the respondent. However, on the intervention of the Labour Commissioner, and as a result of representations made by the respondent, the appellant agreed to a full and final settlement of the 1951 bonus by the payment of an additional bonus of three months basic wages over and above one month s basic wage already paid in that behalf. The agreed amount was in fact disbursed to the workmen on March 25, 1954. On April 9, 1954 the appellant s workmen demanded that they should be paid an advance of Rs. 5 to Rs. 7 for the ensuing Tamil New Year day Festival which fell on April 13, 1954. Having regard to the fact that the appellant had already paid additional bonus to its workmen and their pay for March had been disbursed on April 6, 1954, the demand for the advance made by the workmen was rejected by the appellant, and that led to trouble between the parties. On Monday, April 12, 1954, the workmen came to the installation as usual but suddenly staged a stay-in-strike and refused and obey the reasonable orders of the management of the appellant either to resume work or to leave the premises in the interest of the safety to the installation which carries on business in the storage and distribution of inflammable products. This conduct on the part of the workers amounted to wilful insubordination and disobedience which is punishable with dismissal under the standing order of the appellant. Though repeated demands were made by the appellant s management either to leave the premises or begin their work they were not heeded by the workmen and they continued to stay inside the premises till the end of the day. As a result the management declared a lockout in the afternoon of April 12, 1954, and it was made clear that the workmen would be locked-out until they gave an assurance that they would work peacefully and resort only to constitutional methods for the redress of their grievance. As a result of the insubordinate conduct of its workmen the appellant framed charge-sheets against 23 workmen who were guilty of specific acts of insubordination and other misconduct. A regular and fullfledged enquiry into the charges thus framed against the 23 workmen was held by Mr. Wallace the newly appointed Terminal Superintendent at Tondiarpet, and, as a result of the findings recorded in the said enquiry, of the 23 workmen charge-sheeted two were exonerated and taken back to work while another who was found guilty of minor offences was also reinstated but the appellant wanted to suspend him for four days under Order 24 of the appellant s standing orders, Thus, by the application made under S. 33 the appellant applied for permission to suspend one workmen for four days and dismiss 21. One of the workmen had died in the meanwhile. That in brief is the nature of the proceedings from which the present appeal arises.

2. The Industrial Tribunal found that the strike was illegal and that the lock-out declared by the appellant was legal and justified. It, however, refused permissi