The Industrial Tribunal's jurisdiction under S. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is limited to the enquiry as to whether a prima facie case has been made out by the employer against the employee. The Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over the findings of the enquiry officer and re-appreciate the evidence.

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : An application made by the appellant, the Management of Swatantra Bharat Mills, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi, under S. 33(2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for approval of its decision to dismiss from its employment its employee Mr. Ratanlal, the respondent, has been dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi. It is against this order that the appellant has come to this Court by Special Leave.

2. The appellants carries on business as a textile mill at Najafgarh Road, New Delhi, which is owned and managed by the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. The respondent had been employed as a number marker in the bundling and baling department of the appellant. There are three bundling presses in the mills where bundles of yarn of 10 lbs. each are made out and marked by label signifying the weight, quality, etc. Thereafter the said bundles had to be carried in a trolley by the respondent (who is a time-rated workman) to the baling press. This press is at some distance from the bundling press. The packing of smaller bundles into a large bale was the work of baling-press men who are piece-rated workers. After the baling is done the respondent had to mark the bales with proper marking showing the quality, number of yarn, weight, etc., of the yearn packed. The respondent had been working for a long time past and discharging his duties in the manner indicated.

3. It appears that the respondent became slack and negligent in his duties in June 1957 with the inevitable result that production went down. A charge-sheet was then served on him on June 24, 1957, again on July 16, 1957 and August 5, 1957, for acts of misconduct under the Standing Orders; but before any action could be taken against him the respondent tendered an apology on December 4, 1957, in which he admitted his fault and promised that he would do his best in future to deliver normal number of 10 lbs. bundles as he used to do and to do other normal duties so that the production may not be affected. Thereupon the appellant warned him and took no further action against him.

4. About December 28, 1957, the respondent again became slack and negligent. He was then served with a warning notice. At this stage the baling-press men had complained against the negligence of the respondent because his negligence affected their earnings. On January 2, 1958, a report was received from the baling-press men that their output was considerably going down on account of the negligence of the respondent whereupon another warning was served on the respondent on January 2, 1958. This warning however, had no effect and the respondent s negligence continued. The baling-press men again represented to the appellant against the conduct of the respondent. This time a charge-sheet was served on the respondent and an enquiry was held. The respondent was given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses who gave evidence against him and his explanation was also taken. At the end of the enquiry the enquiry officer found that the changes framed against the respondent had been proved. On receiving the said report, the appellant terminated the respondent s services by an order dated February 28, 1958, and then the present application was made to the industrial tribunal under S. 33(2)(b).

5. The industrial tribunal rejected the application on the ground that in the various circumstances set out by it in its award it was of opinion that the charges against the workman "cannot be held to have been satisfactorily established". It is true that the tribunal began its award with the observation that it had to decide whether a prima facie case had been made out by the appellant against the workman. This approach is no doubt proper because under S. 33 (2)(b) the jurisdiction of the tribunal is limited to the enquiry as to whether a prima facie case has been made out by the employer against the employee or not. Having stated the limits of its jurisdiction correctly in this manner the tr