Tribunal not an appellate authority.

This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioners, the Management of Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd., Madras, pray for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction to quash the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, in Petition No. 60 of 1958 in I.D. No. 32 of 1957, dated 25th September, 1958.

The petitioners which are a concern printing and publishing newspapers, had employed in its staff U. Dorairaj, the second respondent herein, as an attender in its Editorial section, of the “Indian Express”, Madras. On 21st July, 1958, the second respondent, the employee attended office in the morning at 9 a.m. as usual and reported himself before the time-keeper for duty and offered his card for punching. He was then informed that T. Gopal, the attender who was to do the night duty that day had taken sick leave on production of medical certificate, and that he should report himself to duty that day for the night shift. The card was returned to him without punching and he went away stating that he would return to do the night duty. But actually he failed to do the night duty on that day. On 22nd July, 1958, the Management, the petitioner, received a leave letter from the second respondent in which it was averred that he had left for Villupuram on receipt of information that his aunt’s daughter was dead. In that letter he prayed for a leave from 21st July, 1958 to 24th July, 1958. The Management felt suspicious about the conduct of the second respondent and wanted to assure themselves of his bona fides in applying for leave when he was specifically asked to do the night duty in the unavoidable absence of another employee deputed to do the night duty. The second respondent was asked to produce the death certificate from the Villupuram Municipality relating to the death of his aunt’s dughter as reported by him. He was also intimated that failure to produce the death certificate will result in the period of absence not being treated as leave, and also in other suitable action permissible under the rules governing the service. On 24th July, 1958, the second respondent reported himself to duty at 9-30 a.m. in the morning before the time-keeper, one Seshadri. He was then informed by the time-keeper that the Management had already sent a communication to him on 22nd July, 1958, itself in answer to his application for leave. The second respondent however denied having received any such letter and wanted a copy of that letter which was furnished to him by the Management.

The second respondent submitted a written explanation on 26th July, 1958, in which he stated that he got news at 6 O’clock on Sunday (20th July, 1958) that his cousin sister at Villupuram was dangerously ill, that when he went there on 22nd July, 1958 he found the cousin sister in the death bed seriously ill but not dead. He further stated therein that he left Villupuram on 23rd July, 1958 and came straight to the office at 9-30 a.m. on 24th July, 1958. The Management replied on 26th July, 1958 stating that the second respondent deliberately absented himself from duty on and from 21st July, 1958,onfalse excuses and that he should explain why he should not be dismissed from service for giving false reasons for leave and staying away without prior approval of leave. He was also suspended from service on and from 26th July 1958 pending enquiry and disciplinary action m the matter of his having stayed away from duty under the aforesaid circumstances The Management gave notice to the second respondent fixing 28th July, 1958 as the date for enquiry and also intimated to him that he can bring such record or witnesses as he may have, to explain and justify his conduct.

The enquiry was held on 28th July, 1958. The second respondent gave evidence in support of his conduct. In the enquiry, the version the second respondent gave for his absence from Madras was totally different from the contents of his leave letter