Jurisdiction of Tribunal to go into the question of the degree of punishment.

The principal, if not the only point raised in these two writ petitions which seek the issue of writs of certiorari to quash two orders of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, is as to the proper construction of section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act (XIV of 1947) as enacted by the Amending Central Act XXXVI of 1956.

Messrs. Gordon Woodroffe &38; Company are the petitioners in these two writ petitions.There was an industrial dispute between the petitioners, management, and their Workmen regarding the quantum of bonus for the year ended 30th June, 1956. The dispute was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunals, Madras, by the State Government by their Order, dated 17th April, 1957. The Tribunal decided this dispute by its order, dated 19th July, 1957, but the decision of the Tribunal on this dispute is not relevant to the present proceedings but the petition is concerned with certain events which transpired during the pendency of this industrial dispute. During the period 17th April, 1957 and 19th July, 1957 the management charged two of its employees, who are the contesting respondents in these two writ petitions, with misconduct, unconnected with the pending dispute. The concerned workmen were served with charge-sheets. Their explanations were obtained and an enquiry was conducted. The management passed orders on the basis that the misconduct charged against the employees was established. On 27th April, 1957, the respondent in W.P. No. 596 of 1957 was dismissed, while the respondent in W.P. No. 597 of 1957 was discharged from service by an order, dated 3rd May, 1957. The management also tendered one month’s salary in lieu of notice to each of these two workmen. The management thereafter filed on 9th May, 1957, two petitions before the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, purusant to section 33 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as amended, seeking “ the approval” of the Tribunal to the action taken by them, namely to punish their employees in the manner mentioned above. The Tribunal passed orders granting a qualified approval of the action of the management, and directing punishments different from those inflicted by the management and it is the legality of these orders that is challenged in these two petitions.

I shall first take up for consideration W.P. No. 596 of 1957-the workman in question was a Shorthand-Typist. The charges against him were that he had on 25th April, 1957 contrary to the instructions given to him, refused to copy a weight list and (2) that he had on 25th April, 1957 contrary to the instructions given to him refused to type a bill of lading given to him. These items of misconduct charged against the employee were the subject-matter of an enquiry by the management and as stated before they were held established. On this finding the management ordered the dismissal of this employee “subject to the approval of the Tribunal” as required by section 33 (2) of the Act. It is this approval that was sought by the management in their petition to the Tribunal numbered as Petition No. 4 of 1957. The facts alleged against the workman were investigated by the Industrial Tribunal and Mr. Ramaswami Gounder, a learned Judge of this Court, who constituted the Tribunal, recorded:

“I am constrained to hold that the work of a Shorthand-Typist to which post Venugopal (respondent in W.P. No. 596 of 1957) was appointed was not confined to mere stenographic work but comprised also copy-typing work. It follows that when he refused to type the weight list and the bill of lading on the 25th and 26th of April, 1957, respectively he was guilty of disobedience. The management was, therefore, justified in taking action against him which they did and which I am bound to approve.”

The Tribunal then went on to consider whether the punishment of dismissal imposed by the management was not excessive. After overruling the contention raised on behalf of the managment based on certain decisions of the Supreme Court as regards the ju