JUDGMENT :

Mudholkar, J.

These are two connected appeals, one is against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing an appeal under Letters Patent from the order of a Single Judge dismissing a writ petition. In that writ petition the appellant had challenged the correctness of the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissing an appeal preferred by the appellant against an award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur. The writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge on the ground that the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, had ceased to exist and that the record of the case was at Bombay and not within the State of Uttar Pradesh. This view was upheld by the Division Bench. The other appeal is directed against the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal and has been brought by special leave granted by this Court on October 12, 1959. It may be mentioned that the latter appeal was preferred after a long delay of about three years but that delay has already been condoned by this Court.

2. The dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal by the Government of Uttar Pradesh was as follows:

"Whether the employers have wrongfully and/or unjustifiably :erminated the services of Sri Mahabir Prasad, son of Sri Satya Narain, Bungalow Electrician with effect from 2nd June, 1955? If so, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

Mahabir Prasad was employed as an electrician in the power house of the J.K. Cotton and Spinning Mills, the respondent before us. On November 24, 1953 at about 4 p.m. Durga Mali, an employee of the appellant, saw Chhote Lal electric mazdoor of the power house coming in a rickshaw. The rickshaw halted near the tank in the premises of the power house. Adjacent to it is a building called "Kamla Niwas". Chhote Lal jumped over the boundary wall of Kamla Niwas and returned with two bags while Mahabir Prasad stood near the rickshaw. This aroused the suspicion of Durga Mali and he told Mannu Lal Sergeant what he had seen. On seeing the Sergeant following them Mahabir Prasad ran towards the bungalow of Mr Srivastava, while Chhote Lal ran towards Gate No. 1. The rickshaw was thereupon seized by the Sergeant and it was taken to the police station where a report was lodged. The incident was also seen by Ram Niwas who was at that time cleaning utensils in his quarters. Eventually both Mahabir Prasad and Chhote Lal were tried for an offence of theft. On March 23, 1953 each of them was convicted by the Magistrate 1st class, Kanpur under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs 50. Both of them preferred appeals against their convictions and were acquitted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge on September 8, 1955.

3. On December 5, 1953 Mahabir Prasad was served with a charge-sheet by registered post as also Chhote Lal and both were required to present themselves for enquiry on December 9, 1953. Neither of them however appeared personally on that date nor did they submit any explanation. The enquiry officer, in order to give them a further chance, adjourned the enquiry to December 25, 1953 and as Mahabir Prasad was on leave the date was intimated to him by post. Mahabir Prasad replied by a letter dated December 31, asking for further time to appear and the hearing was adjourned to January 29, 1954. A letter was also sent to him intimating the adjourned date on which he was required to appear. He, however, informed the enquiry officer that he did not want to take part in the enquiry and would submit his statement and defence only before the Magistrate who was trying the case. He also requested that the enquiry be adjourned till the decision of the criminal case. This request was granted by the enquiry officer. It was only after the decision of the criminal case that the enquiry was taken up. That was on April 8, 1955. Intimation of this date was given to Mahabir Prasad by a letter dated April 2, 1955.