( 1 ) THIS petition is for a certiorari or for any other appropriate writ or direction quashing the order of the Industrial Court requiring the petitioner to pay wages to the second respondent from the date of the order of discharge by the petitioner company whereby the second respondents services were terminated upto the date of the decision of the Labour Court.

( 2 ) THE second respondent was at the material time serving as a supervisor in the dyeing department of the petitioner company. On September 17 1959 he was served with a show cause notice along with a preliminary suspension order. The notice alleged that in the morning of September 11 1959 the second respondent had behaved towards his superior officer one Varma in an insulting and indisciplined manner that the incident took place in the presence of the Chief Chemist one B. D. Patel and called upon the Second respondent to show cause before the Factory Manager why his services should not be terminated.

( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that an enquiry was held on September 19 1959 but it is also not in dispute that during that enquiry the said Varma was not examined in the presence of the second respondent nor was he offered for cross-examination. The Chief Chemist the said B. D. Patel in whose presence the incident was alleged to have taken place was also not examined though he was offered for cross-examination. On that very day i. e. September 19 1959 an order was served upon the second respondent whereby he was discharged from his service with one months wages in lieu of notice. The second respondent thereupon filed an application under section 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act 1946 alleging (1) that he was discharged with an ulterior motive on account of his having given a notice as a share-holder to another concern the Behari Mills Co. Ltd. in connection with the affairs of that company whose agent was a relation of the petitioner companys agent; and (2) that the enquiry held on September 19 1959 was a defective enquiry inasmuch as the said Varma was not examined thereat and though the Chief Chemist was offered for cross-examination he had not been examined by the company in his presence. Both the parties were allowed to and did in fact adduce evidence before the Labour Court and the Labour Court on the basis of the evidence led before it came to the conclusion that the enquiry held by the company was defective and further that though the impugned order was in form an order of discharge it was in substance one of dismissal and therefore a proper enquiry was obligatory before such punitive action could be taken against the second respondent. In the opinion of the Labour Court no proper inquiry was held and therefore an opportunity was given to the parties to lead evidence. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the second respondent had behaved in an insolent manner towards the said Varma. It was thus of the view that the charge against the second respondent was established and on that basis declined to pass an order of reinstatement. It however directed that as no proper enquiry was held the petitioner company was liable to pay wages to the second respondent upto the date of its order.

( 4 ) AGAINST this order both the second respondent and the petitioner company filed appeals to the Industrial Court the former for refusal to grant reinstatement and the latter against the direction to pay wages upto the date of the said order. The Industrial Court agreed with the Labour Court in refusing to grant reinstatement and dismissed the second respondents appeal. So far as the appeal by the company was concerned the Industrial Court also declined to interfere with the Labour Courts decision and held that inasmuch as the action taken against the second respondent was penal in nature the order passed against the second respondent though one of discharge in form was in substance an order of dismissal and as no proper enquiry was held the second respond