JUDGMENT

UNTWALIA, J:— This appeal on certificate granted by the Patna High Court under the Article 133 (1) of the constitution of India as it stands after the 30th Constitution Amendment Act is by the Management of the Monghyr Factory of India Tobacco Company Limited impleading the Labour Union as respondent No. 2 and the concerned workman as respondent No. 3. The State of Bihar is respondent No. 4.

2. Respondent No 3 was working as an operator on a packing machine in the appellants factory at Monghyr on May 21, 1966 when he is said to have committed certain acts of misconduct. A charge-sheet was served on him by the Management on May 24. At the domestic inquiry held by the Management, he was found guilty and eventually dismissed from service on June 9, 1966. On the raising of an industrial dispute, it was referred for adjudication by the Government of Bihar to the Labour Court, Patna, respondent No. 1 by a notification dated the 6th/17th February, 1968. The Labour Court made an award on November 23, 1970 ordering reinstatement of the workman Shri Ram Krishan Pathak, respondent No.3, with all his back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. The appellant challenged the award by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court, which was dismissed on July 23, 1973.

3. At the instance of the Management, a certificate of fitness was granted by the High Court on February 22, 1974. Since by that time Art. 133 (1) had been amended by the 30th Constitution Amendment Act, the certificate was granted in accordance with it. In the order granting the certificate it is mentioned that three points were urged by the appellant but the High Court thought that two of them were such as would not justify the grant of the certificate, but one of the points involved in the case was a substantial question of law of general importance and the said question needed to be decided by the SC, Pursuant to the grant of the certificate a petition of appeal was filed in this Court followed in the usual course by a statement of the case. Various other points which have been argued on behalf of the Management before the Labour Court as also in the High Court were taken in the petition of appeal and the statement of the case.

4. Mr. G. B. Pai appearing in support of the appeal urged on the three following points out of the several argued before the High Court:-

(1) That the reference is invalid as on its very face it indicates that it was mechanically made by the Government without application of mind.

(2) That the workmen was guilty of misconduct within the meaning of clause (ii) of Standing Order 20 applicable to the appellant and both the Courts below have committed errors of law on the face of the record in taking a contrary view.

(3) That in any view of the matter on the facts and in the circumstances of this case it was not expedient, fit or proper to order reinstatement of the concerned workmen and in lieu thereof, only compensation ought to have been allowed.

5. Mr. Santokh Singh, appearing for the Union and representing the workman raised a preliminary objection and submitted that the appellant having not complied with the requirement of R. 5 of O. XV of the SC Rules,1966, hereinafter to be called the Rules, could urge only one point on the basis of which the certificate was granted by the High Court and no other. Mr. Ram Chandra Prasad appearing for the State of Bihar refuted the first submission made on behalf of the appellant while Mr. Santokh Singh combated the other two.

6. We shall first deal with the preliminary objection of Mr. Singh. Order XV, Rule 5 of the Rules reads as follows :-

"Where a party desires to appeal on grounds which can be raised only with the leave of the Court, it shall lodge along with the petition of appeal a separate petition stating the grounds so purposed to be raised and praying for leave to appeal on those grounds."

It is true that no separate petition was lodged by the appellant along with the petition of appe