The Labour Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction to review its own orders under O. 41, R. 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as it has the same powers as a civil court when hearing an appeal.

Judgment

BHAGWATI, J. : This appeal with special leave against the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Calcutta, arises out of an application made by the appellant under S. 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for permission to discharge the respondent.

2. The respondent had been appointed as a pay-clerk in the appellant s cash department on 30-4-1945, and had been confirmed in service with effect from 1-8-1945. Since the beginning of 1949, the Respondent was found to have become negligent and careless in his work and he was also disobedient and slow in the performance of the duties that were allotted to him. Repeated verbal and written warnings were given to him but they had no effect whatever. Consequently the Chief Cashier by his letter dated 24-10-1949, addressed to the Manager of the appellant, complained that he was very negligent and careless in his work, and habitually showed sulkiness, that he was also disobedient, and shirked the duties that were allotted to him and that recently, he was careless enough to keep the Company s money in an open drawer of a safe, and go home, without locking the same. The Management thereupon asked for his written explanation which he submitted on 28-10-1949, stating that if there was anything wrong on his part that was due to his ill health, hard work and mental anxiety. He, therefore, asked to be excused and stated that he would take much more care in future about his work. On 17-11-1949, the Chief Cashier again complained against the respondent stating that he had not only registered no improvement but was grossly negligent in his duties, in spite of repeated warnings, and was in the habit of absenting himself on flimsy grounds, and always tried to avoid duties that were entrusted to him and was very insolent in his behaviour and conduct. A charge-sheet was submitted to him on 18-11-1949, and he was suspended till the final disposal of the enquiry. On November 19, 1949, the respondent wrote a letter to the Managing Director of the appellant pleading not guilty to the charges framed against him and asking for an interview so that he may have a chance to represent his grievances personally. The respondent was granted an interview with the Manager of the appellant who investigated the case of the respondent and found him guilty of the charges framed against him. The respondent had admitted having been rude to his superior officer in a fit of temper but appeared to be repentant of his conduct and had tendered an apology to the Chief Cashier. He also submitted on 29-11-1949, a letter asking to be excused. Under the circumstances, the manager of the appellant recommended in his report dated 29-11-1949, that the respondent be given one more opportunity to prove himself of good behaviour but having regard to the request made by the respondent in that behalf suggested that he be transferred to the Mechanical Engineering Department. The Manager also stated at the end of the said report that he had warned the respondent that if he got any further adverse report about his work or conduct, his services would be terminated forthwith. Following upon that report a letter was addressed by the appellant to the respondent on the same day intimating that the appellant had decided to give him one more chance of working in the organization on the distinct understanding that should there be any further adverse report about his work or conduct his services would be terminated forthwith . He was directed on that understanding to report to Mr. Hooper of the M. E. Department, where he was being transferred with effect from the next day.

3. In spite of these chances being given to him the respondent did not improve and he was again found seriously neglecting his work. There were also complaints from the typists to the effect that the respondent s chatter interfered with their work. Mr. Hooper after giving him verbal warnings on several o