The Labour Appellate Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by re-evaluating the facts and concluding that the order was a discharge instead of a termination of employment, which was a finding of fact made by the Labour Court and Industrial Court.

1. Special Civil Application No. 3577 of 1956. -- This is an application by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and the General Manager of the Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking of the Bombay Municipal Corporation, requesting this Court to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or other writ, direction or order under Article 236 of the Constitution or an order or direction in exercise of its powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution against the Labour Appellate Tribunal, calling for the records of the case relating to an order dated 13-11-1956 in Appeal (Bom) No. 289 of 1956 and to set aside and quash the decision and order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal.

2. The facts which give rise to this application are these: The second respondent was an employee of the Bombay Municipal Corporation. On 16-8-1955 the B.E/ S.T. Undertaking received a report from one Joshi, Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhoiwada Police Station, that the second respondent was seen coming hurriedly out of Chaniar Baug Lane, opposite Parel railway workshop, and that he and another person were attempting to throw stones at the Undertakings bus at about 3-50 a.m. that the second respondent and his companion on seeing a bus picked up two big stones from a heap of stones on the road and were poised to throw the stones at the vehicle when the Sub-Inspector Inspector rushed towards them; that thereupon the second respondent and his companion dropped the stones and pretended to make an appearance that they were not engaged in doing anything unlawful, that the Sub-Inspector stopped them, and questioned them with a view to ascertain what they were doing, and that the second respondent and his companion gave their names and informed the Sub-Inspector that they were employees of the B.E.S.T. Undertaking, and they apologised for their conduct. Sub-Inspector Joshi arrested them and after making inquiries charge-sheeted them. At the trial the second respondent and his companion were acquitted of the charge by the Presidency Magistrate. In the meanwhile after receiving the report from Sub-Inspector Joshi the Management of the Undertaking issued a show cause notice to the second respondent. That notice set out the report made by Sub-Inspector Joshi and called upon the second respondent to show cause why in view of his behaviour prejudicial to the working of the Undertaking, the services of the second respondent should not be terminated. A detailed written explanation was filed by the second respondent, and it was submitted by him that he had been arrested on mere suspicion. He contended that action was taken against him because of his trade union activities. The Transportation Engineer of the Undertaking held an inquiry and observed that there wag no reason why Sub-inspector Joshi, should have made a false report against the second respondent and that no ground had been made out which justified him in disbelieving the report of Sub-Inspector joshi. The Transportation Engineer also observed that the behaviour of the second respondent at the material time and place was prejudicial and that he had lost confidence in the second respondent. Having regard to the circumstance that the second- respondent had been on previous occasions suspended for wilful disobedience and in subordination to his superiors and having regard to the conduct charged against him the Transportation Engineer held that the second respondent was not a fit person to be retained on the Undertakings establishment and directed that the services of the second respondent do stand determined with effect from 1-10-1955. Against the order an appeal was preferred to the General Manager. The General Manager agreed with the findings of the Transportation Engineer and accepted the view that the case was a fit one for terminating the services of the second respondent in view of his Prejudicial behaviour. .

3. An application was submitted to the Labour Court Bombay under S