The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a fair and proper enquiry in conformity with the principles of natural justice, as emphasized in Meanglass Tea Estate v. Their workman 1963 (2) LLJ 392, Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. Their workmen 1959 (II) L.LJ. 666, The workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. v. The Management 1973 (I) LLJ 278.

Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.

1. The appellant was the Secretary of the Mutholi, Cooperative Society Ltd., the 1st respondent herein, represented by its President. Six charges were levelled against him in respect of certain irregularities and misappropriation committed while he was the Secretary of the Society. A sub committee of the Society went into the six charges and found charges 1 and 4 proved, and the rest not proved. The Charge No. 1 related to misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 200 and Charge No. 4 to a misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 20. In the light of the finding on these charges, the Committee of the Society directed dismissal from service of the appellant. That gave rise to Industrial Dispute No. 20 of 1968 which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Quilon. By Ext. P1 Award, the Labour Court, found that the dismissal was unjustified and unsustainable. It set aside the same and directed reinstatement of the appellant, but denied him backwages on the ground that there was a certain carelessness on his part in writing up the accounts which was responsible for the charges of misappropriation found against him. To quash the award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement, the Society filed O.P. No. 3016 of 1973 and the appellant filed O.P. No. 4337 of 1973 against the denial of backwages to him. The latter O.P. was dismissed and there is no further appeal against the same. The former was allowed by the learned Judge and the Labour Court's award directing reinstatement of the appellant was quashed, with the result that the appellant's order of dismissal stood. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Judge the appellant has preferred this appeal.

2. The Labour Court took the view that the finding of misappropriation on Charge No. 1 in respect of the amount of Rs. 200 cannot be sustained; and that, if at all, it was only a case of mistake or negligence on the part of the appellant and not a case in regard to which a charge of misappropriation could be found against him. In regard to Charge No. 4 again, the Labour Court was of the view that it was not proved. It was in these circumstances, that it directed reinstatement of the workman. The learned Judge of this Court was of the view that the Labour Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the finding at the domestic enquiry that the 3rd respondent was guilty of Charge No. 1. The learned Judge took the view that Charge No. 1 had been proved; and that, that by itself was sufficient to sustain the penalty of dismissal visited on the appellant. The Labour Court had taken the view that as the penalty of dismissal had been proposed and inflicted on the appellant, in view of the six charges framed and two found against him, and as all of them except No. 4 had been found unsustainable by the Labour Court the resultant penalty also should fail. In support of this view, the Tribunal had relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in Royal Printing Works v. Industrial Tribunal Madras 1963 (2) LLJ 60 learned Judge in our opinion rightly pointed out that the reliance placed on this decision was wrong, and there was the authority of the Supreme Court ruling in Burn and Co. Ltd. v. Workman 1970 (2) LLJ 56 to the effect that if, among a number of charges, one or more of a substantial nature have been proved, the proved, charge or charges by themselves would be sufficient to sustain the penalty inflicted, even if, on an analysis, the other charge or charges is or are found to be unsustainable. The proposition may be accepted as well settled and as supported by more than one decision of the Supreme Court; and were the position disclosed what it has been stated to be by the learned Judge, we would have little difficulty in sustaining the order of the learned Judge and dismissing the appellant's appeal. But counsel for the appellant very rightly directed his attack on a more fundamental aspect of the case. He argued that in this case there had been no enquiry at