A. N. Grover, J.

1. This is a petition filed by the management of the Panipat General and Woollen Mills Company, Limited, under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the legality and validity of an award made by the Industrial tribunal functioning at Patiala, the presiding officer being Kesho Ram Passey.

2. Jagjit Singh, respondent 4, was a placer in the spinning department of the mills. The allegation against him was that on 8 April 1959 he went to the house of Chaugule, the works manager, at about 8 p. m. accompanied by another placer Gokul Narain. They were both drunk and respondent 4 was armed with a knife. They wanted the works manager to come out of the house, the obvious intention being to do him harm but Chaugule was away to Ludhiana. On 9 April 1959, Chaugule, the works manager, made a complaint in writing against respondent 4 and Gokul Narain, to the general manager, Shiv Kumar Gupta. On that report, the general manager only wrote " Mr. Jha. " This to be found at page 49 of the record of the tribunal. A charge-sheet, dated 14 April 1959 was drawn up by Chaugule to the effect that respondent 4 had gone on the night of 8 April 1959 at 8 p. m. in a drunken condition along with Gokul Narain to the house of works manager, Chaugule and at that time, the aforesaid respondent had a knife in Ms hand. Ho was asked to appear in the office of the manager on 17 April 1959 at 6 p. m, to show cause why action should not be taken under standing Order 28/h. The enquiry, however, is stated to have been conducted by A. K. Jha, who was the labour officer, who examined a number of witnesses including one Nand Lal Chaudhari, a Government employee, being the line superintendent of the Punjab Electricity Board, Kharar, and S. P. Jadav, the spinning master of the mills. The evidence was recorded in Urdu and at the conclusion of the depositions of the witnesses, signatures of respondent 4 also appear. Gokul Narain was similarly charge-sheeted and an enquiry was held against him as well. Respondent 4 was present at the enquiry and there is no allegation that he was not given full opportunity to participate in the proceedings. He, however, denied the incident as alleged against him. On 20 April 1959, A. K. Jha made a report to the general manager. The conclusion as contained in the report of the enquiry officer was as follows: In view of the statements of complainants and his witnesses, I am fully satisfied that they went to Chaugules place to cause injuries to him. Chaugule is the works manager of the company and the action of these persons even if it is outside the factory premises, cannot be tolerated, because this sort of action with the manager of the company is an act of misconduct, even if it is committed outside the factory premises, He recommended that respondent 4 be dismissed from service and as Gokul Narain had resigned, no action was necessary against him. The general manager recorded an order on 21 April 1959, dismissing respondent 4 under standing Order 29/a with effect from 21 April 1959. It appears that the union took up the matter on behalf of respondent 4 and conciliation proceedings were held by the conciliation officer. By means of a letter, dated 25 April I860, the Secretary to the Punjab Government, Labour Department, informed the management of the mills that the charges against; Jagjit Singh and Gokul Narain had been found to be serious during the consultations and there was no justification in referring their case for adjudication. Only a few months later, however, the Government made a reference under Sec.10 (1) Of the Industrial Disputes Act by means of a notification, dated 8 July 1960, in the dispute between the management and respondent 4. The matter in dispute was stated to be as follows: Whether the termination of services of Jagjit Singh, workman, is justified and in order and If not, to what relief he is entitled.

3. The tribunal made an award, dated 1 September 1960 holding that the termination o