Judgment

SHAH, J. : Two questions arise in limine in these appeals:

1. Whether an appeal may be entertained in exercise of powers under Art. 136 of the Constitution against a direction of the Conciliation Officer issued in disposing of an application under cl. 29 of the Order promulgated by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; and

2. Whether against the direction issued by the Conciliation Officer exercising authority under cf. 29 of the Order an appeal lay to the Labour Appellate Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950.

(2) It would be necessary to consider the merits of the appeal in the event of an affirmative answer on either of these questions.

3. Facts which have a bearing on the preliminary questions are briefly these:-

Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the company - owns factories at Meerut in the State of Uttar Pradesh for manufacturing sugar and straw boards. On December 13, 1935, the Company received a notice relating to demands for bonus, leave, retaining allowance etc. from the Action Committee of one of the Labour Unions of the workmen employed in the Sugar Factory. It is the case of the Company that on December 26, 1955 there was a meeting of the workmen and certain employees exhorted the workmen to resort to "direct action" and in pursuance thereof the workmen adopted a "slow-down strike" which resulted in great reduction in the operations of crushing sugurcane, and production of sugar. The company thereupon served charge-sheets upon sixty-three workmen charging them individually and collectively for doing acts calculated to destroy, the machinery of the factory and for deliberately adopting a policy of "go-slow" and refusing to attend work assigned to them as the pointed time.

4. The Enquiry Officer who investigated the charges against the delinquent workmen, by his order dated January 9, 1958 held that all the workmen were guilty of "sabotage and slow-down strike" and were therefore liable to be dismissed: But at that time a dispute relating to payment of bonus was pending before the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Tribunal in which the Company and the workmen were concerned, and the conditions of service of the workmen could not, by virtue of. cl. 29 of the Order issued in 1954 by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, be altered, and the workmen could not be discharged without the previous permission of the Conciliation Officer.

5. An application was accordingly submitted by the Company to the Regional Conciliation Officer, Meerut, for permission to dismiss the workmen who were on the finding of the Enquiry Officer, concerned with "slow-down strike and other illegal tactics adopted by them with a view to cause loss to the Company. The Conciliation Officer granted permission in respect of only eleven workmen, for in his view, the remaining fifty-two workmen were more "passive participants in the go-slow compaign", and that it "would not be fair and justifiable to grant permission to dismiss those workmen from service". The company preferred an appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow against the direction of the Conciliation Officer refusing to grant permission to dismiss fifty-two workmen, but the appeal was rejected, because in the view of the Appellate Tribunal the Conciliation Officer was not an "authority" within the meaning of S. 2(c) cl. (iii) of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, and the appeal was therefore incompetent. The Company has, with special leave, preferred appeals against the direction of the Conciliation Officer, and the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The order of the-Conciliation Officer is challenged on the ground that in refusing permission to dismiss fifty-two workmen, the Conciliation Officer ignored the principles settled by this Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal in cases dealing with applications for granting permission