Judgment

VAIDIALINGAM, J.:- The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal by special leave, is whether the High Court in this case while exercising jurisdiction under Art. 227 was justified in reversing the order of the Industrial Tribunal granting approval under the proviso to S. 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act).

2. The workman concerned though served has not appeared before us in these proceedings, but Mr. S. V. Gupte, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has quite fairly placed before us all aspects of the case.

3. The workman concerned was employed in the appellant Company as an unskilled worker in the General Department and is termed as a helper. On a prior occasion, in view of complaints received against him the appellant administered to the workman a warning on April 9, 1963. But later on again, in view of his unsatisfactory conduct charges were framed on April 12, 1963 and duly served on the workman and an inquiry, after due notice to the workman was conducted by the management on April 17, 1963. The workman was found guilty by the management in the said inquiry. The finding in the inquiry was that