The powers of an Industrial Tribunal to interfere in the matter of dismissal of workmen by the management are limited and the Tribunal cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the management.

JUDGMENT :

K.N. Wanchoo, J.

1. This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the fifth Industrial Tribunal, Bengal. The appellant is a paper mill. Ram Naresh Kumar respondent was in the employ of the appellant. He also happened to be the Vice-President of the Union at the relevant time. He was working in the time office and his duty was to note the attendance and send the necessary attendance reports daily to the labour office of the appellant. But he failed to send the report to the labour office from September 6 to September 28, 1953, with respect to the Soda Recovery Department, Relay II, and from September 1 to September 28, 1953, with respect to the Digester Department, Relay II. Consequently, a charge was framed against him on September 30, 1953, and he was asked to explain within three days why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for disobedience of orders under the relevant standing orders. He submitted an explanation, which was followed by an enquiry on October 3, 1953, at which he did not cross-examine the witnesses. Thereafter he was suspended with effect from October 5, 1953; but as some industrial dispute was under adjudication before a Tribunal the appellant applied for permission to dismiss him under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Before however the application could be disposed of, the industrial dispute was decided by the Tribunal and in consequence there was no necessity for any order on the application under Section 33. Thereafter, the appellant dismissed Ram Naresh Kumar on December 17, 1953. On this a dispute was raised by the Union and reference was made by the Government of West Bengal on March 31, 1954, with respect to Ram Naresh Kumar and some other employees. In the present appeal we are only concerned with Ram Naresh Kumar, and the matter referred to the Industrial Tribunal was whether the termination of the service of Ram Naresh Kumar was justified and whether he was entitled to any relief.

2. The Tribunal has held that there was dereliction of duty by Ram Naresh Kumar. It has also held that there was a proper enquiry which was followed by suspension and dismissal of Ram Naresh Kumar. It is also not in dispute that the punishment of dismissal could be meted out under the relevant standing order for such dereliction of duty. The Tribunal, however, set aside the order of dismissal on two grounds. It said that it was usual for the labour office where there was delay in submitting the attendance report, to send a reminder to the workman at fault, but this was not done in the present case, and it thought that this was done designedly in order to take advantage of Ram Naresh Kumar's lapses. Secondly, the Tribunal was of the view that as Ram Naresh Kumar was the Vice-President of the Union and certain disputes were going on between the Union and the appellant which resulted in the withdrawal of the recognition of the Union on October 5, 1953, Ram Naresh Kumar was more or less of the nature of an eye-sore to the management and there was therefore ample room for suspicion that the management wanted somehow or other to get rid of this man. Though the Tribunal did not say so in so many words, it seems to have thought that this was a case of victimisation and in consequence ordered the reinstatement of Ram Naresh Kumar. It may be mentioned that the explanation given by Ram Naresh Kumar for his failure to perform his duties was so unsatisfactory and absurd that even the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union before the Tribunal had to admit that it was a childish explanation.

3. We are of opinion that on the findings of the Tribunal itself there was no case for interference with the order of dismissal. The scope of the power of an Industrial Tribunal to interfere in the matter of dismissal of workmen by the management was considered by this Court in Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited v. Workmen, (1958) SCR 667 and it was laid down that the powers of an Industrial T