In industrial disputes, domestic enquiries conducted by employers must be fair and just, and the principles of natural justice must be observed. The Industrial Tribunal has the jurisdiction to consider the merits of the dispute and reach its own conclusion, even if a domestic enquiry has been conducted by the employer.

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.: This appeal arises out of an industrial dispute between the appellant, Khardah Co. Ltd., and the respondents, its workmen. The dispute was in regard to the dismissal of the appellant s employee, Samiran Jadav. The respondents alleged that the said dismissal was unjustified, whereas, according to the appellant, the said employee had been properly and validly dismissed. The dispute which was referred to the 4th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, for its adjudication was whether the said dismissal was justified, and to what relief, if any, was the workman entitled? The Tribunal has held that the dismissal was unjustified and so it has directed the appellant to reinstate the said employee to his old post within a month from the date of the publication of the award. It has also ordered that the period starting from the date of the dismissal till the date of reinstatement should be treated as leave without pay and as such, should be counted towards the length of service. It is against this award that the appellant has come to this Court by special leave.

2. The respondent s case was that Jadav had been dismissed by the appellant mala fide with the motive of victimising him for his trade union activities. Jadav was the Organising Secretary of the Union and since he supported the Union s demands very strongly, the appellant wanted to get rid of him. It appears that Jadav had been working as a Weaver for some years past. He was confirmed in service with effect from April 12, 1954. On September 19, 1960, he went on a week s leave. When he returned on September 26, 1960, he was asked to work on the machine producing twill, though , normally, he was assigned work on a plain machine. Jadav was not accustomed to work on the complicated machine which produces twill and so, he requested the management that he should be asked to do his usual work on a plain machine. This request was, however, turned down. Being unaccustomed to work on the machine producing twill, Jadav met with an accident on September 27, 1960; and was granted medical leave for a week ending on Saturday October 1, 1960. On October 3, 1960, when he resumed duty, he again requested the management that he should be permitted to work on the plain machine, but when his request was turned down, he told the management that he would work on the twill machine in the second shift which starts from 1 P. M. On that day another employee Mahboob, who was ailing and had been on leave, asked for further leave which was refused and he fell unconscious while he was going to operate his machine. As a result. 700 weavers of the appellant stopped work and the weaving section could not resume work at 1 P. M. The management then declared a lock-out on October 5, 1960 which continued until October 29, 1960.

3. On October 3, 1960, the management served a charge-sheet on Jadav in which it was alleged that Jadav had wilfully disobeyed the lawful and reasonable order of his superior and had acted in a manner subversive of discipline. The case against him was that he had moved from one place to another in the Weaving Department and incited workers of the said department to go on strike. The management alleged that by his conduct, Jadav had committed misconduct under R. 14(c) (I) and (viii) of the Standing Orders. Jadav was called upon to offer his explanation within 24 hours after receipt of the charge-sheet.

4. After Jadav gave his explanation, an enquiry was heard. At the initial stages of the enquiry. Jadav appeared, but, later, he did not take part in the proceedings. The appellant contends that Jadav deliberately refrained from taking part in the proceedings, whereas according to the respondents, the enquiry was conducted unfairly, and so, it became impossible for Jadav to participate in it. This enquiry was conducted by the Manager himself. After the enquiry was over, the Manager decided that Jadav was guilty of the charge, and so, dismissed him on November 21, 1960. The res