BERI J — This is a special appeal directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dated the 11th October, 1971 whereby he dismissed the appellants writ petitions in limine.

2. The facts leading to this controversy briefly stated are these: M/s. Aditya Mills Ltd. Madanganj had served a charge-sheet on 4 workmen (respondents Nos. 1 to 4) that in the B shift (2 P.M to 10 P. M ) on the 26th May, 1970 they refused to work on the winding machine and they instigated other workmen to go on strike. By their reply dated 27th May, 1970 the workmen admitted that they went on strike but disputed the allegation that they were guilty of instigating the strike. On the 9th and 10th June, 1970 a departmental enquiry was held in which the Mill examined 3 witnesses, namely. Ramkishore Pareek MW/1), Roop Singh Bhandari (MW/2) and Girdhar Singh (MW/3) On behalf of the workmen Sabudeen (DW/l), Girdhari (DW/2 , Misrilal DW/3), Prithvi Singh (DW/4) and Badru (DW/5 were examined. The evidence of the parties was closed on the 10th June, 1 970 and the Enquiry Officer posted the case to the 14th June, 1970 for his report. On that day the report was not announced and the matter was postponed to the 19th June, 1970 for that purpose On the 15th June, 1970 an application was made by the Mills Management to the effect that the case be reopened and one J N Patel should be examined on its behalf as he was a necessary witness. On the 16th June, 1970 the Enquiry Officer at the back of the workmen passed an order for the examination of Patel. On the June, 1970 when the workmen appeared they protested against the examination of a new witness after the closure of the parties case but the protest was overruled by the Enquiry Officer and the case was listed for the 30th June 1970 and then to the 1st July, 1970. The workmen repeated their protest against Patels examination but without success and Patel was examined On the 2nd July, 1970 the Enquiry Officer submitted his report saying that the charge of inciting the strike was proved against the 4 workmen and on the 3rd July, 1970 Mr. P. D. Podar dismissed all the 4 workmen. As some proceedings were pending in a Labour Court, its approval bacame necessary under sec. 33(2)(b) and proviso there to before dismissal could become effective and the matter was placed before the Court. The Labour Court by its order dated the 30th June, 1971 declined to approve the Managements action of dismissing the 4 workmen. On September 1971 a writ petition was presented to this Court but the learned single Judge observed that although the learned Judge of the Labour Court did not bear in his mind the precise scope of his jurisdiction, the ultimate decision of the Court in rejecting the application of the Management was correct and called for no interference. He dismissed the petition in limine. Aggrieved by that order the Management appeals

3. Relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Ganesh Dutt(l) the learned counsel for the appellant urged that the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by an Industrial Tribunal in such circumstances is a very limited one The legal position is that where a proper enquiry has been held by the Management, the Tribunal has to accept the finding arrived at in that enquiry unless it is perverse or unreasonable and should give the permission asked for unless it has reason to believe that the Management is guilty of victimisation or has been guilty of unfair labour practice or is acting mala fide. To illustrate the scope of the labour court under sec. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the learned counsel relied on a number of decisions, namely, New Victoria Mills Company, Ltd , Kanpur vs. Rohini Kumar (2); The Lord Krishna Textile Mills vs. Its Workmen(3) and Martin Burn Ltd vs. R. K. Banerjee(4). Learned counsel urged that the Labour Court in the case before us virtually reappraised the evidence before the Enquiry Officer and the Labour Co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document