Judgement

ALAGIRISWAMI, J.:- This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in an application made under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act by the appellant for approval of their action in dismissing the respondent.

2. The respondent was dismissed while an industrial dispute was pending before the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, the appellant made the application. Four charge-sheets were served on the respondent on 15-12-1965, 31-12-1965, 1-1-1966 and 4-1-l966 containing in all eight charges. On 8th January, 1966 an enquiry officer, proceeded to hold the enquiry. The respondent appeared before the enquiry officer and wanted to consult somebody outside. He came back after about an hour and 15 minutes and the enquiry was resumed. When he was asked to sign the first page of the enquiry proceedings the respondent refused to do so. He again left the enquiry saying that he would consult his companions outside. When one of the Management s witnesses, Mr. P. S. Bedi was about to give his evidence the respondent s brother entered the enquiry room and asked "who is Mr. Gulati. I want to see him and find out his office address and residential address". Mr. Gulati being the enquiry officer. He asked him who he was and he said that he was from the Labour Department. When he was told that he had no business to interfere in the enquiry he flared up. Mr. Motwane, one of the partners of the appellant firm telephoned to the police. The appellant s brother thereupon tried to run away after snatching some paper Mr. Nanak Manager of the appellant company, tried to prevent him from running with the papers. There was a scuffle in which Mr. Nanak s finger got fractured and he also received some blows. The appellant s brother ran away after tearing the papers. The enquiry was adjourned to January 10 and a telegram was sent to the respondent. On the 10th January a telegram was received from respondent s wife saying that he was out of station end requesting postponement of the enquiry. The enquiry was however held and as a result of the enquiry the respondent was dismissed.

3. The Industrial Tribunal took the view that the enquiry was held without complying with the principles of natural justice and fair play. The Industrial Tribunal thereupon proceeded to examine witnesses and as a result of the assessment of the evidence adduced came to the conclusion that charge 1 and charge 3 read with charge 7 were proved but that the extreme penalty of dismissal was not in tune with those incidents and clearly showed the mala fide intention of the company to victimise the workmen, and refused to accord approval. The charges 1, 3 and 7 are as follows:

"(i) That on 6th, December, 1965 he behaved badly with one customer Shri P. S. Bedi and shouted at him.

(iii) That he flouted the orders of the partner by not allowing the table of Shri Manohar Singh to be removed to another room and behaved in an insolent manner.

(vii) That he obstructed the peon in the performance of his duties."

charges 3 and 7 are not serious ones and we would therefore confine ourselves to charge 1. The charge-sheet in relation to this is as follows:

"We produce below a letter received by us from one of our esteemed customers stating that you shouted at him and also misbehaved :

"I am sorry to bring to your notice the insulting attitude of one of your mechanic Shri Baldev towards me when I visited your showroom yesterday on the 6th December, 65. My two radios given for repair have totally been spoiled and when he was called to tell me the parts if any required, he shouted in an insulting tone and misbehaved. "This kind of attitude shown to your customers by your employees is definitely harmful to the interests of such standard company." I would therefore request you to return my other set immediately through bearer of this letter as I no longer want to deal with you.

Yours Faithfully

Sd/- P. S. Bedi.

You will notice that business with the customer is no