Judgment

WANCHOO, J. : These appeals arise out of seventeen applications under S. 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, No. 14 of 1947, (hereinafter called the Act). The brief facts necessary for their disposal are these. The appellant is a press working in Delhi. It appears that there was a dispute between the appellant and its workmen with respect to certain demands made by the workmen. That matter was pending before the conciliation officer. While those proceedings were pending, the workmen served upon the management a notice on October 3, 1955, intimating that they would strike after fourteen days. This period was to expire on October 18, 1955, but the workmen went on strike from October 17 and the strike continued till October 29. In the meantime, the Chief Commissioner made a reference on October 19, 1955, and also declared the strike illegal. But the order declaring the strike illegal was received by the union on October 29 and thereafter the strike was called off from October 30. When the time for payment of wages came the appellant deducted wages for the period from October 19 to October 29, 1955. Thereupon certain workmen applied under S. 33-A of the Act with respect to this deduction. These applications were disposed of in August 1956 and the tribunal held that it was improper on the part of the workmen to have precipitated matters by going on strike & that there was no justification for the strike. It was also observed by the tribunal that the strike had become illegal on October 19 and not on October 29 when the order declaring the strike illegal was received by he union. The application were therefore dismissed.

2. Immediately after this order of the tribunal, the appellant decided to dismiss some of the workmen on the ground of their having joined an illegal strike and picked out the seventeen workmen who later made applications under S. 33-A of the Act which have resulted in the present appeals. Charge-sheets were served on these workmen on September 19, 1956, and they replied on September 20. On September 24 1956, the appellant informed these workmen that an inquiry would be held on September 27, 1956, with respect to the charge-sheets given to them on September 19. In the meantime it appears that a general demonstration was to be held at the instance of the Delhi Press Workers Union on the afternoon of September 21, 1956, and a procession was to be taken out which was to terminate before the office of the Director of Industries. The Delhi Press Workers Press wrote to all the presses, including the appellant-press, about this demonstration. Thereupon some of the workmen of the appellant-press made applications to the appellant for leave to join the demonstration. This leave was refused and a notice was given by the appellant that if any workman absented himself it would amount to a strike and that he would be joining the demonstration at his own risk and would be marked absent for the rest of the day. Therefore when the appellant informed the seventeen workmen that an enquiry would be held on September 27 into the charge-sheets given on September 19, 1956, it was also stated that these workmen, had absented themselves after 1 p. m. on September 21 and had staged a demonstration before the main gate of the press and shouted slogans and had thus contravened sections 26(1) & 27 of the Act and that they were to show cause why heir behaviour should not be reported to the Delhi Administration, apparently for taking penal action under the abovementioned sections.

3. An enquiry was eventually held on September 27, 1956, at which all the seventeen workmen were present. The complaint of the workmen was that one Mr. Bhattacharya who was present on their behalf was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. On the other hand, the appellant contended that the enquiry was fair and regular.

4. The tribunal did not go into the question whether the contention of the workmen that Mr. Bhattacharya on their behalf was not allowed to