JUDGMENT

Per Das Gupta, J.:-The appellant, a sugar mill company, made on 31 December 1956 an application under S.33 of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, Patna, for the dismissal of twenty-one workmen for misconduct in connexion with " go-slow " alleged to have been resorted to by the workmen of the factory from the midnight of 12 February to 18 February 1955. The tribunal held that actual participation in a " go-slow " had been established only against one of the workmen at the Donga end and that the " go-slow " at the later stages in which the other twenty workmen had been engaged occurred as a necessary consequence of this go-slow by one workman at the Donga end and was not a deliberate "go-slow" by them. The tribunal was of opinion also that the management was not acting bona fide and really was seeking to victimize active members of the union which the employer had refused to recognize. Accordingly, it refused permission in respect of twenty of the workmen and gave permission to dismiss only Nihora Dubey, a workman at the Donga. The correctness of this refusal is challenged before us in this appeal by special leave. The appellant s contention is twofold. First, it is said that the finding of the tribunal that these workmen in respect of whom permission to dismiss was refused were not guilty of any deliberate go-slow is perverse; secondly, it is contended that the tribunal s view that the employer was guilty of mala fide conduct and victimization of these workmen for union activities is arbitrary and erroneous.

It does not appear to have been disputed that " go-slow " was actually resorted to in this factory from 12 February to 18 February 1955. It was indeed hardly open to the workmen to dispute this, after all the pomp and ceremony with which " go-slow" was celebrated. We find that as early as 15 January 1955 ten demands were communicated by the union on behalf of the workmen by a letter which said that unless these demands were conceded by 26 January 1955, the workmen would resort to " go-slow " from 30 January 1955. This notice to "go-slow" appears to have been withdrawn on 22 January 1955, apparently on the advice of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Muzaffarpur. A further letter was issued the same day in which five demands were made with a request to concede these by 6 February failing which it was said they would "resort to go slow from 19 February 1955." The secretary of the Bharat Sugar Mills to whom the conciliation officer wrote, that very day, wrote back on 22 January 1955 that they had not received any notice dated 22 January 1955. In reply to a farther communication from the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the appellant sent a telegram on 3 February 1955 regreting inability to attend the proposed conciliation meeting on 4 February 1955, as both the secretary and the assistant secretary were away. Then on 8 February another telegram was sent on behalf of the management informing the Assistant Labour Commissioner that the general secretary would be returning soon and that any date after the 11th may be fixed. Thereafter, in reply to a further communication from the Assistant Commissioner inquiring as to what date would suit the management, the general secretary K. C. Sarda sent another telegram requesting the Assistant Labour Commissioner to fix any date before the 17th. This telegram was sent on 11 February. On the next date, 12 February, Sarda sent a farther telegram to the Assistant Labour Commissioner stating that he would come to Muzaffarpur on the 15th afternoon. Before any action could however be taken by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the workmen commenced their " go-slow" from the midnight of 12 February.

"Go-slow" which is a picturesque description of deliberate delaying of production by workmen pretending to be engaged in the factory is one of the most pernicious practices that discontented or disgruntled workmen some time resort to. It would not be far wrong to c