An Industrial Tribunal has the power to review the findings of an enquiry conducted by the employer under the Standing Orders, but it cannot ignore the enquiry proceedings or the evidence taken therein. The Industrial Tribunal can only interfere with the findings of the enquiry if there is want of good faith, victimisation, a basic error or violation of a principle of natural justice, or if the findings are completely baseless or perverse.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in this application is the Belsund Sugar Company Limited, a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Its factory is at Righa in Behar and its registered office is at 14 Netaji Subhas Road in the city of Calcutta. The subject-matter of this application concerns a set of industrial disputes said to have arisen between the Company and three of its workmen, the respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4. By an order dated 29-3-1955 made under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, the Government of Behar referred an industrial dispute arising between the Company and six of its workers to an Industrial Tribunal consisting of Mr. Ali Hasan. A copy of this order dated 29-3-1955 is annexure "a" to the petition. The names of the six workmen mentioned therein are found in annexure "b". We are concerned in this only with three workmen, and they are Nos. 1, 2 and 5 in the order of reference, being respondents 3, 5 and 2 in this application. The notification mentioned above, states that the Governor of Bihar was of the opinion that an industrial dispute existed or was apprehended between the Management of the Sugar Factories mentioned in the order, and their workmen named in Annexure "b" regarding the matters specified in annexure ''a". The annexure "a" runs as follows :--"whether the workmen named in Annexure B are entitled to re-instatement with compensation or any other relief. " the Tribunal went into the matter and made its Award dated the 21st July, 1955 a copy whereof is annexure "c" to the petition. As I have mentioned above, the three respondents with whom we are concerned in this case are respondents No. 2. Ram Nirekhan Singh, respondent No. 3, Kuseshwar Singh and respondent No. 4 Jyoti Narain Dubey. All these three workmen had been dismissed by the Company. By its interim Award, the Industrial tribunal re-instated all of them. Against this decision, the Company appealed to the Appellate Tribunal and a copy of the finding of the Appellate Tribunal is annexure "d" to the petition. By the order dated the 20th February, 1956 the Appellate Tribunal upheld the order of the Industrial Tribunal save and except this that with regard to Kuseshwar Singh it varied the order by imposing four day's suspension. It is against this appellate order that this Rule is directed.

( 2 ) THE original Tribunal is not before me, because it is a Tribunal located in Bihar, in respect of which I have no jurisdiction. The labour Appellate Tribunal, respondent No. 1, is situate within my jurisdiction and its records are situate within my jurisdiction and it is possible to issue a Writ of Certiorari or Mandamus upon that Tribunal. With regard to these three workers, their cases will have to be considered somewhat separately, but the first point taken by Mr. Ginwalla is a common point, namely, that none of the disputes so far as these three persons are concerned was an industrial dispute, but that the disputes were individual disputes and therefore the order of reference is invalid. If of course the order of reference is invalid, then the appeal would be incompetent. I think there is substantial ground for saying that the order of reference is incompetent because the disputes are individual disputes and not collective or industrial disputes. To start with, the order of reference itself will show that the dispute is stated to be between the Company and certain individual workers. The Award of the Industrial Tribunal in its introductory statement recognises this and describes it as a dispute between the Management of five sugar mills and 38 individual employees of these mills as detailed in annexure "b" of the order of reference. It appears from the order-sheet that at the hearing three of the workmen in respect of whom the reference was made dropped out. With regard to the remaining three. Kuseshwar Singh represented himself personally and with regard to the other two, they were represented at the hearing by the Secretary Righa Mills' Wo