GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. - (1.) THIS appeal by special leave arises out of an industrial dispute between Doom Dooma Tea Company, Ltd., (hereinafter called the appellant), the workmen of Daimukhia Tea Estate (hereinafter called respondent 1) and Bapiram Das (hereinafter called respondent 2). The dispute was in regard to the dismissal of the appellant's employee Bapiram Das (respondent 2). It was urged by respondent 2 that the said dismissal was illegal and unjustified whereas the appellant contended that the impugned dismissal was fully justified. This dispute was referred by the Government of Assam for adjudication to Mr. Radhanath Hazarika under Cl. (c) of Sub-sec. (1) of S.10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Evidence was led before the industrial tribunal by both the parties. Having considered the said evidence the tribunal took the view that the dismissal of respondent 2 was not justified. Even so it was not inclined to direct reinstatement of respondents. It, however, directed the appellant to grant respondent 2 a certificate of discharge with all retrenchment benefits which were specifically enumerated in the award. It is this award which is challenged before us by Mr. Viswanatha Sastri on behalf of the appellant.
(2.) THE material facts leading to the dispute ought to be briefly stated act the outset. It appears that respondent 2 had been working as a factory hazira mohorer in the Daimukhia Tea Estate of the appellant since December 1946. With a view to improve the standard of the pruning work in section 6 of the said estate the garden manager had instructed Mr. Addission, the assistant manager, to take special care in the work of the said section. Accordingly, on 22 December, 1955, Mr. Addission asked respondent 2 to take particular care in checking the labourers' work while taking their hazira (attendance) in the morning. Respondent 2 was further asked to direct the worker responsible for the poor quality of work to have his work executed once again in proper manner with a view to bring it up to the normal standard, and not to allow him leave until that was done to the satisfaction of Mr. Addission. At 2-10 p.m. on the same day when Mr. Addission went to section 6 he noticed that the standard of work done by the workers was very poor and that respondent 2 had not carried out his instruction in that behalf. When respondent 2 was asked about it he explained that the standard of work of each and every worker was very poor and so he did not and could not have the whole of the work reexecuted. Thereupon respondent 2 was told that Mr. Addission would make a report to the manager about this matter and he was directed to submit his explanation in writing to the manager in that behalf. After this conversation took place respondent 2 left the room of Mr. Singh, the garden engineer, where he had met Mr. Addission. Shortly thereafter respondent 2 returned to the office of Mr. Singh and desired to talk to him. Mr. Singh advised him to give his explanation in writing whatever it was. Then Mr. Addission asked respondent 2 whether he had recorded the attendance of the labourers who had returned poor quality of work; and when respondent 2 answered him in the affirmative Mr. Addission said"Bigger fool you too have done so; why did you not . . ." Before, however, Mr. Addission could complete his sentence respondent 2 hit him under his left eye with a fist blow shouting "shut up." This blow caused a bleeding injury. Mr. Singh thereupon jumped from his seat and prevented respondent 2 from assaulting Mr. Addission any further. Respondent 2 then left Mr. Singh's room saying that Mr. Addission did not know him.
(3.) THIS incident was reported to the manager Mr. Black immediately. Respondent 2 was then suspended pending enquiry. A charge sheet was served on him on 24 December, 1955, and he was required to furnish his explanation by 26 December, 1955, which he did. On 28 December, 1955, the manager held an enquiry, recorded evidence of both sides and came to the conclusion that respondent 2 was guilty of gross misconduct under standing order 10(a) 7 inasmuch as he has assaulted Mr. Addission, the assistant manager. Consequently he ordered the dismissal of respondent 2 with immediate effect. It is this order of dismissal which has given rise to the present dispute.;