( 1. ) THIS is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the decisions of the labour court, Raipur, and the industrial court, Indore upholding an order passed on 31 March 1963 by respondent 1, the managing director of the Sarguja Raigarh Roadways (Private) Ltd. , Ambikapur, dismissing the appellant Jaidas from service.

( 2. ) THE appellant was employed an head-mistry at the material time and was also then the general secretary of the Sarguja Raigarh Motor Karmachari Sangh; a registered trade union. His dismissal from service by respondent 1 was as a sequel to an enquiry hold by the said respondent against him on the charges that on 28 December 1962 he assaulted one Parmeshwar Ram, a co-worker, outside the work premises and after the hours of duty, and that he had committed a breach of discipline and also obstructed other workers of the respondent-company in the discharge of their duties. The petitioner made an unsuccessful approach to the non-applicant 1 under Section 31 (3) of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereafter called the Act), for reconsideration of his decision dismissing him from service. He then moved the labour court challenging the legality of the order of dismissal and praying for a direction with regard to his reinstatement in service and for payment of back-wages. The contention of the applicant before the labour court was that the order of dismissal was passed by the management without holding say enquiry and giving him an opportunity to defend himself and in violation of the principles of natural justice, that the dismissal was based on a charge which did not amount to misconduct within the meaning of Clause (h) of Para 15 of the standing orders; and that his dismissal was a sheer act of victimization on the part of the management. The labour court, after finding that the enquiry held by the management was not fair and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, gave an opportunity to the employer to lead evidence to justify the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner. The applicant was also given an opportunity to tender evidence in rebuttal. On the basis of the evidence recorded before it, the labour court found that the petitioner Jai Das assaulted Parmeshwar Ram, a co-worker, on 28 December 1962 at about 7-45 p. m. on a public road, that the place of occurrence was outside the work premises and the assault was outside the working hours. In the circumstances in which Parmeshwar Ram was assaulted, the labour court held that the assault had a rational connextion with the employment of Jai Das and Parmeshwar Ram and was not the result of any purely private or individual dispute ; and that the act of assault was thus subversive of discipline amounting to misconduct under Clause (h) of Para 15. The labour court also held that there was no element of victimization at all in the petitioners dismissal from service. Accordingly, the dismissal order passed by the management was upheld by the labour court.

( 3. ) THE petitioner then preferred a revision petition before the industrial court, which was dismissed. The learned president of the industrial court saw no reason to disturb the findings of fact reached by the labour court with regard to the fact of assault by the applicant on Parmeshwar Ram on 28 December 1962 and the motive which actuated the attack. He found himself in agreement with the view taken by the labour court that though the assault was outside the place of work and the working hours, it was so connected with the employment of the petitioner and Parmeshwar Ram as to be subversive of discipline and amounted to misconduct within the meaning of Clause (h) of Para 15 of the standing order. The learned president also rejected the contention of the applicant that his dismissal was an act of victimization on the part of management and that in any case his dismissal became operative from the