The jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal in dealing with an industrial dispute is limited to examining the fairness of an enquiry conducted by the employer, and it cannot interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer unless they are perverse, unfair, or amount to victimisation or unfair labour practice.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. Gajendragadkar, J.

1. This appeal by special leave arises out of an industrial dispute between the appellant the Tata Oil Mills Ltd., and the respondents its Workmen. The dispute was in regard to the termination of services of Mr K.P. Gupta. It appears that the appellant passed an order terminating his services on February 16, 1959. In this order, the appellant stated that some enquiries had been held into his misconduct and as a result thereof, the enquiry officer had reached the conclusion that the charges framed against him had been proved. The order then goes on to add that in view of the said findings, the appellant would have been justified in dismissing Mr Gupta; however, instead of doing so, it had decided to put an end to the contract of service of Mr Gupta under service Rule 40(1). The order adds that Mr Gupta would be paid a month's salary in lieu of notice. The dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for its adjudication was whether the termination of Mr Gupta's services brought about by the order passed by the appellant on February 16, 1959 was justified or not. The respondent urged that it was not justified whereas according to the appellant, it was fully justified.

2. At the trial, the Appellant took two preliminary points. It urged that the dispute referred to the Industrial Tribunal had not been properly referred and this point was raised on the basis that the Union which had sponsored the case of Mr Gupta the Kanpur Tel Mazdoor Sabha had no locus standi to raise the present dispute. That is how the validity of the Reference was challenged by the appellant. The second preliminary point raised by the appellant was that the matter in dispute was not an industrial dispute, substantially because the appellant urged that Mr, Gupta had not been dismissed, but his services had been terminated under Service Rule 40(1) in pursuance of the terms of employment and that could not be said to raise an industrial dispute. The Tribunal has overruled both these: contentions. It has found that the Kanpur Tel Mazdoor Sabha had locus standi to raise the present dispute and it has held that the order by which Mr Gupta's services were terminated in law and in substance amounted to an order of dismissal. Having thus overruled the first, two preliminary objections, the Tribunal proceeded to examine the merits of the dispute referred to it for its adjudication.

3. It appears that two charges were framed against Mr Gupta and the Tribunal has held that the enquiry held in respect of both the charges was unfair, and so it has ultimately come to the conclusion that the dismissal of Mr Gupta was wrongful and illegal and has directed the appellant to reinstate him. It is against this order that the appellant has come to this court by special leave.

4. For the purpose of this appeal, we are assuming that the Tribunal was right in overruling the preliminary objections raised by the appellant, and we will therefore deal with the merits of the dispute between the parties and the award in relation thereto. The first charge framed against Mr Gupta was served on him on December 16, 1958. Under this charge the appellant's case was that according to the journey plan given to Mr Gupta, he was scheduled to visit Faizabad market on September 16, 1958; he failed to work that market on the date and instead of explaining to his office as to why he did not go there on that day, he made a false report to show that he did work that market on the 16th. The charge further alleged that he had worked that market only on the 17th September. Having served this charge on Mr Gupta, the appellant gave time till December 22, 1958 to file his explanation. Mr Gupta filed his explanation and an enquiry followed. Mr Kamta Prasad held enquiry from January 9 to January 14, 1959. At this enquiry, nearly 16 witnesses have been examined. Out of these, five witnesses have given evidence for Mr Gupta including himself. Mr Kamta Prasad rejected Mr Gupta'