N. CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR, J.

(1) PRATUI Chandra Mitra was the head clerk, and Phanindra Nath Ghose, the sanitary inspector of the Budge Budge Municipality, and they were also members of the Municipal Workers Union. On receipt of complaints against them for negligence, insubordination and in- discipline, the chairman of the muncipality suspended them on 13/7/1949, drew up separate proceedings, and called for an explanation within a specifled date. After the explanations were received, they were considered at a meeting of the commissioners held on 6/8/1949, and by a majority, the commissioners confirmed the order of suspension and directed the dismissal of the two employees. At the instance of the Municipal Workers union who questioned the propriety of the dismissal, the matter was referred by the State of West Bengal on 24/9/1949 to the industrial tribunal for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act. The tribunal made its award on 13/2/1950 that the suspension and punishment of the two employees were cases of victimisation, and It directed their reinstatement in their respective offices.

(2) THE municipality took the matter to the High court at Calcutta by means of a petion for a writ of certiorari underarticles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. There were prayers In the petition for quashing the proceeding before the tribunal, for cancellation of the award, and for an order restraining the authorities from giving effect to the award and from taking any steps in pursuance thereof. At the instance of the High Court, a separate application was filed under article 227. Both the petitions were heard by Harries C. J. and Sambhu Nath Banerjee J.

THE points raised before them on behalf of the petitioners were five in all :

(A) that there was no industrial dispute, and therefore there could be no reference under the Industrial Disputes Act to any tribunal ;

(B) that the said Act was not applicable to disputes with municipalities :

(C) that even if it did, it was ultra vires;

(D) that the tribunal should not have directed reinstatement of the dismissed employees; and

(E) that the award was bad on the merits.

THESE contentions were negatived by the learned judges, and the petitions were dismissed. But leave was granted under article 132 (1) of the Constitution, and that is how the matter has now come up before us.

(3) IT is not necessary to dwell at any length on points (c), (d) and (e). If the Industrial Disputes Act applies to municipalities and their employees, the power to reinstate dismissed employees, held in Western India Automobile Association v. Industrial tribunal, Bombay and others (See 1949 L.L.J. p 245] to be within the competence of a tribunal under the Act, will trench no doubt on the power to appoint and dismiss conferred on the chairman and commissioners of municipalities under S. 66 and 67 of the Bengal Municipal Act. This invasion of the provincial field of legislation does not however render the Industrial Disputes Act of the central legislature invalid, as we have to pay regard .primarily to the pith and substance of the challenged Act in considering the question of conflict -between the two jurisdictions. Industrial and labour disputes are within the competence of the central legislature, and the impugned Act deals with this subject and not with local government. The point is covered by Prafulla Kumar Mookerjee v, Bank of Commerce Ltd., Khulna [L.R. 74 1. A. 23]

(4) WHETHER on the facts of a particular case the dismissal of an employee was wrongful or justified is a question primarily for the tribunal to decide, and here the tribunal held that the dismissals were clear cases of victimisation and hence wrongful. Unless there was any grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law calling for intervention, it is not for the High court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere.

(5) POINTS (a) and (b) are interlaced. The dismissal