If at the end of the domestic enquiry the enquiring officer does not make a report, that itself introduces a serious infirmity in the enquiry and the Industrial Tribunal can in that case ignore the domestic enquiry and deal with the merits of the dispute for itself.

JUDGMENT :

Gajendragadkar, J.

1. This appeal by special leave arises from an industrial dispute between the appellant Samnuggur Jute Factory Co., Ltd. and its workmen. The dispute which was referred by the Government of West Bengal to the Fifth Industrial Tribunal for its adjudication was in regard to the dismissal of Ramrachha Pandey who was an employee of the appellant. The Industrial Tribunal has held that the dismissal was unjustified and so it has directed the appellant to reinstate the said employee without break of service. It is this order which is challenged before us by Mr. Setalvad on behalf of the appellant. The charge framed against the appellant which ultimately led to his dismissal was that on July 2, 1955 the employee Ramrachha Pandey dragged another employee Mainuddin with the help of four other durwans at about 9 a.m. and robbed him of Rs. 244. It appears that on that day Mainuddin had retired and by way of retiral benefits due to him Rs. 444-6-9 were paid to him. While he was learning the premises after receiving his retiral benefits, Ramrachha and the other four durwans attacked him and robbed him of Rs. 244. That in brief is the nature of the case for which proceedings were taken against Ramrachha and an order of dismissal was ultimately passed against him.

2. The case for Ramrachha was that he and the other four durwans had advanced to Mainuddin certain amounts on the occasion of the marriage of the latter's daughter and that when on July 2, 1955 Mainuddin was paid the amount representing his retiral benefits, he voluntarily repaid the loan and it was not true that he had either been dragged or had been robbed of the said amount.

3. The appellant took the view that the complaint made against Ramrachha disclosed that he had been guilty of misconduct under two provisions of the appellant's standing orders. The two provisions on which the case against Ramrachha was based were clause 14(c)(viii) and clause 14(c)(xv) of the standing orders. Under the first clause riotous behaviour during the working hours constituted misconduct while under the latter clause collection of moneys within the mill premises during working hours for purposes not sanctioned by the management constituted misconduct. The appellant's case is that the incident which took place on July 2, 1955 showed that Ramrachha had contravened both the provisions of the standing orders and was thus liable to be dismissed.

4. It appears that at the time when the appellant held the enquiry against Ramrachha, an industrial dispute was pending between the appellant and its workmen and so under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act the appellant applied for permission to dismiss Ramrachha. This application was made on July 18, 1955. Soon thereafter, Ramrachha applied under Section 33-A of the Act complaining that the appellant had contravened the provisions of Section 33. Whilst these two applications were pending, the main dispute itself ended under the award which was pronounced on October 6, 1955 and so the Tribunal before which the two applications were pending was no longer entitled to deal with those applications. The said award was challenged by the appellant by appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal; and pending the said appeal the appellant moved the Appellate Tribunal for permission to dismiss Ramrachha. As a counter blast, Ramrachha also moved the Appellate Tribunal as he had done before the Tribunal itself. It appears that the Labour Appellate Tribunal held that the enquiry which had been held by the appellant against Ramrachha was not proper and so it directed that a fresh enquiry should be held. Incidentally, the Appellate Tribunal also passed an order directing the suspension of Ramrachha on condition that subsistence allowance at the rates specified should be paid to him and accommodation should be continued to be given to him pending the final disposal of the domestic enquiry.

5. This latter portion of the directions issued by the Appe