The Industrial Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the merits of a dispute relating to the dismissal of an industrial employee if a proper enquiry has been held by the employer.

Judgment:

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.: An industrial dispute between the appellant, the Management of Ritz Theatre (Private) Ltd., and the respondents, its Workmen, from which this appeal arises was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal at Delhi by the Delhi Administration on November 13, 1959. The dispute was in regard to the termination of services of two of the appellant s employees, Jai Jai Ram and Mohd. Mia and the question referred for adjudication was whether the said two workmen should be reinstated with full back wages and to what relief they were entitled.

2. The appellant is a company which carries on the business of exhibiting cinema films in its theatre, the Ritz Cinema, and the two workmen had been its employees for several years past. It appeals that in August, 1958, charge sheets were served on the two workmen. Against Jai Jai Ram, four charges were framed. The first charge was that on August 1, 1958, he along with Mohd. Mia had given a beating with slaps and fist blows while on duty to Mool Krishan Nigam other employee at about 6 P. M. during the Matinee show of "Nausherwane-Adil"; the second charge was that he had misappropriated carbons belonging to the management; the third was that he had run Reel No. 9 on the picture "Bhabi" upside down on August 19, 1958 during the 6-30 P.M. show, and the last charge was that he had run over the Film Print of picture "Mother India" and thereby damaged the film print.

3. Against Mohd. Mia, three charges were framed. The first was in regard to the incident which took place on August 1, 1958, in which he and Jai Jai Ram had acted together in beating with slaps and fist blows Mool Krishan Nigam; the second was that on August 25,1958, at about 3 P.M. during the show he had threatened Ramesh Chandra another employee and had abused him and pushed him out of the cabin; and the third was that on August 23,1958, while on duty he had left his cabin for half an hour without leave or permission or even without giving any information and was found taking tea in the restaurant during duty hours.

4. These charges were enquired into by the Enquiry Officer appointed by the appellant. At the enquiry, the appellant led evidence, both oral and documentary. Eleven witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellant whereas eleven witnesses were examined on behalf of the workmen. The Enquiry Officer examined the evidence adduced before him by the respective parties, considered their rival contentions and came to the conclusion that the charges framed against both the workmen had been fully established. Accordingly, the Officer recommended that the services of both the workmen should be dispensed with for misconduct. He added that in case his recommendation for dismissing the employees was accepted, certain payments should be made to them as indicated in the report. The appellant s case is that the report made by the Enquiry Officer was accepted by it and in accordance with the recommendation made by the said report, Jai Jai Ram and Mohd. Mia were dismissed on January 15, 1959, and May 1,1959, respectively.

5. In the present dispute, the respondents case was that the departmental enquiry instituted by the appellant against the two workmen was unfair, unjust, and inequitable and so it was urged that the termination of services of both the workmen was not justified. In regard to Mohd. Mia, the respondents took an additional specific plea that the said workman had not been dismissed but had continued to be under suspension from September 11, 1958, and on this additional plea, reinstatement of Mohd. Mia was claimed. Both these allegations were denied by the appellant; it urged that the departmental enquiry held by its Officer was fair and just and that fullest opportunity had been given to the employees to explain their position and meet the charges framed against them. In regard to Mohd. Mia, it was averred that after the management decided to terminate his services, the order of dismissal was in