The order of dismissal, for the purpose of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is the original order passed by the management, and not the appellate order.

Judgment

VAIDIALINGAM, J. :- This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the award, dated November 10, 1964, of the Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh. Hyderabad, accepting a complaint, filed by the respondent, under Section 83-A, of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act).

2. The respondent was, at the material time, working in the main branch of the appellant, at Belgaum. By order dated March 8, 1963, the respondent was transferred to Bhatkal branch, as a C rank Officer, to work there, as an accountant. He was also informed that he was being relieved, so as to enable him to proceed to duty, at the place of transfer, by March 18, 1963. He was allowed three days joining time.

3. On March 13, 1963, the Manager of the Branch at Belgaum, informed the respondent that he was relieved, with effect from that date, to join duty at the Bhatkal branch, by March 18, 1963. The respondents, by letter dated March 14, 1963, after setting out the various matters therein, applied for privilege leave, for ninety days, from March 14, 1983 to June 11, 1963, so as to enable him to improve his health and also to attend to certain domestic matters. But the Bank, the appellant herein, desired him, by their letter dated March 23, 1963 to join duty and then apply for leave, if necessary. Some further correspondence ensued, between the Bank and the respondent, the respondent again making a request for sanction of his leave and the appellant Bank insisting upon his joining duty, according to the order of transfer, and then applying for leave. But, as the respondent did not join duty at the Bhatkal branch, though he was relieved from the Belgaum officer the appellant, by their communication, dated July 23, 1963, desired the respondent to offer explanation for not obeying the order of transfer. The respondent sent a reply, on July 29, 1963, stating what, according to him, were the reasons for his not joining duty at the transferred office. The appellant Bank, not satisfied with the explanation, given by the respondent, framed two charges against him, and communicated the same, on August 7, 1963. The charges were to the effect that (a) the respondent, by wilfully disobeying the lawful and reasonable transfer order of the management, has committed gross misconduct, for which the punishment is dismissal from service, and (b) the respondent had absented himself from March 14, 1963, without leave, which again, is a minor misconduct for which also punishment can be imposed. The respondent was also directed to submit his explanation, if any, to the charges on or before August 25, 1963. The respondent offered his explanation to the charges by his letter dated August 21, 1963. The appellant informed the respondent, on October 1, 1963, that an enquiry would be conducted against him, in respect of the charges, on October 5, 1963, and desired him to be present at the enquiry, with the necessary evidence, in support of his defence.

4. The enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer. in which the respondent participated. The Enquiry Officer sent a report to the Managing Director of the Bank, dated October 28. 1963. substantially finding the respondent guilty of both the charges. In respect of the first charge of gross misconduct, for willfully disobeying the order of transfer, the Enquiry Officer had proposed that the respondent should be dismissed and in respect of the second charge, of absenting without leave, it was proposed in the report that the increment be stopped, for a period of six months, with effect from April 25, 1963. Certain consequential proposals were also made, as to how exactly the respondents absence, was to be dealt with.

5. The Managing Director of the Bank, after considering the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, as well as the further explanation, offered by the respondent in, respect of the finding recorded in the said report by his order dated November 12, 1963, agreed with the recommendati