Judgment

SHELAT, J.: - This appeal by special leave, is against the order of the High Court of Patna dismissing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the award passed by the Labour Court on a reference to it of an industrial dispute under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947.

2. The reference arose from the following facts: Prior to April 20, 1959 the Government of Bihar was conducting through one of its departments, called the Rajya Transport Authority, an undertaking of road transport in the State. The said Authority appointed respondent 3 as a Head Clerk in the office of the Divisional Manager, Rajya Transport, Bhagalpur, as from July 27, 1956. The order appointing him stated that the appointment was purely temporary and was terminable without notice and without assigning any reasons. By an order dated February 18, 1959, issued by the State Transport Commissioner, Rajya Transport, he was discharged from service with immediate effect. On April 20, 1959, the State Government, in exercise of the power conferred by Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 64 of 1950. set up as from May 1, 1959, the appellant corporation. The notification issued under Section 3 inter alia stated that the said Corporation shall, with effect from the said date, exercise all the powers and perform all the functions which are at present being exercised and performed by the Rajya Transport, Bihar". In the meantime the question of the termination of services of respondent 3 was espoused by respondent 4 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. The conciliation proceedings having failed, the State Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court by an order date February 24, 1961.

3. The Labour Court found: (a) That respondent 3 was a workman within the definition of that term in the Industrial Disputes Act and the Standing Orders governing the appellant corporation, and that though appointed a head clerk, there was no evidence to show that his work as such head clerk was managerial or supervisory, (b) That the order dated February 18, 1959 terminating the services of respondent 3 was not termination of service simpliciter, but was punitive in nature. The Labour Court relied on a letter dated January 30, 1960 addressed by the appellant corporation to the said conciliation officer that the services of respondent 3 had been terminated because

"in the course of certain enquiries the Rajya Transport Department had found that Shri Sheo Prasad Sinha had committed various irregularities of the various nature in the discharge of his duties".

The Labour Court held that the said alleged irregularities amounted to misconduct as defined by the said standing orders, and that therefore, the services of respondent 3 could not be terminated on the ground of those irregularities without holding a disciplinary enquiry and giving to respondent 3 therein an opportunity of being heard. No such enquiry having admittedly been held, the Labour Court held that the said order was not justified as it was not in bona fide exercise of the power to terminate the services of respondent 3. No evidence was led by the appellant corporation before the Labour Court either to prove the said irregularities or to establish that the said order was justified. The Labour Court consequently held that the said order being invalid, and therefore, inoperative, respondent 3 would be deemed to have continued to be in service. It further held that the appellant corporation was the successor-in-title of the said Rajya Transport and having taken over the erstwhile employees of the Rajya Transport, respondent 3 was deemed to be continuing in service of the appellant corporation. On these findings, the Labour Court concluded that the said order of termination was invalid, that respondent 3 was deemed to have continued in the service of Rajya Transport and thereafter of the appellant corporation, and on this basis directed the appellant corporatio