Judgment

MITTER, J.:- This is an appeal by Special leave from an award of the Labour Court, Bangalore dated October 9, 1967 where the dispute referred for adjudication was "whether the Management of the Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company ) was justified in terminating the services of five workmen including one Kuppuswamy? .

2. During the course of the proceedings the Binny Mills Labour Association, Bengal, a registered trade union, sponsoring the cause of the dismissed workmen entered into a settlement with the management whereby the management agreed to reinstate one Ramanatha and the union gave up its demand for reinstatement of three other excluding Kuppuswamy. The Union however withdrew its support to Kuppuswamy from the date of the settlement and the latter stated before the Labour Court that he would conduct his own case.

3. The facts relating to the dismissal of Kuppuswamy are as follows. He is alleged to have behaved in an insolent manner towards the Warehouse Master, his superior officer, on 3rd November, 1963 in respect whereof he was given a charge sheet on 6th November, 1963 the complaint against him being that he was guilty of misconduct falling under Standing Order No. 13 (11) i.e. act subversive to discipline. He submitted a written explanation on 8th November. An enquiry was held by the Mill Manager on 10th November and on the same day the Mill Manager came to the conclusion that the charge against Kuppuswamy had been proved and taking into account the gravity of the misconduct and his past conduct the Mill Manager found him not a fit person to remain in the employment of the company and terminated his services. Before the Labour Court Kuppuswamy filed his statement of claim, the management its statement of objections followed by a rejoined of Kuppuswamy. Kuppuswamy examined himself and one Shadgopalan was examined on behalf of the management. The records of the domestic enquiry were marked in evidence by common consert. The Labour Court while accepting the finding of the domestic tribunal that Kuppuswamy was guilty of the misconduct alleged against him was not inclined to retain the order of termination of his service mainly on the ground that he was not given an opportunity to challenge the statement of one Veeraraghavan regarding his past record of service nor was he given any opportunity to say whether Veeraraghavan s statement was true or false or reasonably explainable. According to the Tribunal the enquiry officer:

"might have thought fit to pass this very order of termination even without going into the past record of Kuppuswamy. But the possibility of his awarding a lesser punishment also cannot be ruled out, altogether.

4. We have therefore to examine what happened at the enquiry stage to ascertain whether the labour court was right in acting in the manner it did. The charge against Kuppuswamy formulated by the manager was that :

"on the 3rd of this month at about 9.15 a.m. Kuppuswamy had behaved in an insolent manner towards the Warehouse Master Mr. Veeraraghavan by shouting at him and creating a disorderly scene in the Warehouse office.

The Manager reminded Kuppuswamy of his written explanation and asked him whether he had anything to add. Kuppuswamy stated that he had stacked a number of pieces which had mounted so high that he apprehended that the same might fall over and he therefore started stacking the pieces in between the pieces already mounted before the examiners. The Manager reminded him that the charge against him was not about stacking pieces but of behaving in an insolent manner toward the Warehouse Manager. Kuppuswamy was asked whether he wanted to call anyone as witness and Kuppuswamy answered in the negative. Veeraraghavan was then examined by the Manager. According to Veeraraghavan s statement. Kuppuswamy had disregarded the instructions given to him by one Allam, Assistant Manager by stacking the pieces between the examiners in a ma