GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. - (1.) THESE two appeals by special leave arise from two applications made by the appellant, Rohtas Industries, Ltd., to the industrial tribunal under S.33 of the Industrial Disputes Act requesting the tribunal to approve of the appellant's action in dismissing eight of its employees. The application from which Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1961 arises was confined to the case of Kailash Singh, whereas the application from which Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1961 arises included a prayer for the approval of the appellant's action in dismissing seven of its employees. Thus approval was sought for the dismissal of eight employees in all. The tribunal has not given its approval to the appellant for the dismissal of Kailash Singh and so the application made by the appellant in that behalf has been dismissed. In regard to the seven employees impleaded in the other application the tribunal has given its approval in respect of five employees but has disallowed the dismissal in respect of two. In other words, the appellant was given tribunal's approval for the dismissal of five employees out of eight and its application was refused in respect of the remaining three, Kailash Singh being included in that list. That is how the two appeals are directed against that part of the order of the tribunal which has refused to give approval to the appellant's action in dismissing some of its employees.
(2.) WE shall take the case of Kailash Singh first. It may be stated at the outset that the material facts leading to the two applications are the same and they centered round an incident which took place on 13 July, 1959, at about 11-30 a.m. It appears that on that day and at the time just specified Mr. Mehta, who is the establishment officer of the appellant's concern, suddenly entered the office room of Mr. Podder, the works manager. He was accompanied by a group of other persons including those for whose dismissal the tribunal's approval was asked for. All of sudden one of these groups slapped Mr. Podder and assaulted him. The other persons who has accompanied Mr. Mehta also took part in the assault. It is alleged that Mr. Mehta whipped out a revolver and aimed at Mr. Podder but he was prevented from using the revolver against Mr. Podder by havildar Tripathi who rushed in and hit Mr. Mehta on his wrist as a result of which the revolver slipped from the grip of Mr. Mehta. Hearing this commotion, some officers who were working in the neighbouring room and others who were working in the hall rushed to the scene and rescued the works manager. All this trouble arose, it is said because Mr. Mehta was asked to make over charge of the guest house and the transport vehicles which were in his charge. He refused to comply with the order, locked the stores and the vacant rooms of the guest house and took away the keys to his residence.After this incident was over, a show-cause notice was served on Mr. Mehta which was received by him, but instead of complying with the said notice he took recourse to organize an assault on the works manager. In the interests of discipline Mr. Podder, who himself was the victim of this assault, decided to dismiss Mr. Mehta and proceeded to dismiss Kailash Singh after holding an enquiry. He also dismissed the other persons concerned in the assault purporting to act under Cl. 57 of the standing orders. It would thus be seen that so far as the case of Kailash Singh is concerned approval to his dismissal was applied for after an enquiry was held against his misconduct, whereas in the case of the other persons impleaded in the companion application no enquiry had been held but Cl. 57 of the standing order was invoked. That in brief is the genesis of the two applications. Now, reverting to the case of Kailash Singh, the position is very clear. He was served with a chargesheet and an enquiry was held. At the enquiry evidence was given by witnesses including Mr. Jain who stated that Mr. Kailash Singh assaulted him with a shoe. It may be noted that Kailash Singh did not choose to cross-examine Mr. Jain. The officer who held the enquiry believed the evidence of Mr. Jain in substance and made a report against Kailash Singh. Acting on that report the works manager decided to dismiss him, but since an industrial dispute was pending in which Kailash Singh was a concerned workman an application was made under S. 33 for tribunal's approval in regard to his dismissal.
(3.) IN regard to the other persons Cl. 57 was invoked; but Mr. A. B. N. Sinha, for appellant, has fairly conceded that he would not be in a position to rely upon the said clause. That clause merely permits the employer to dismiss the employee in the case of a serious misconduct without notice but that would not justify the dismissal of an employee without an enquiry; and so in dealing with the cases of persons in respect of whom no enquiry was held the tribunal had to consider the matter for itself. Accordingly evidence has been led by both the parties. The appellant has examined six witnesses and the workmen have also examined some witnesses of their own.The tribunal dealt with both the disputes together and has passed its orders in one judgment. It has rejected the contention of the union that the workmen concerned went to the office of the works manager to rescue Mr. Mehta. It appears that the case put up by the union was that Mr. Podder was the aggressor and Mr. Mehta was the victim and that the union pleaded that the workmen whose names had been included in the two application had really gone to assist Mr. Mehta. This contention has been rejected by the tribunal. Broadly stated, the tribunal has found that the workmen concerned were present in the office of the works manager at the relevant time, and since it has rejected the theory that they were there to help Mr. Mehta, logically it would seem to follow that they were there to assist Mr. Mehta in the action that he intended to take against the works manager. In regard to Kailash Singh the tribunal has not accorded approval to the appellant for his dismissal substantially ignoring the fact that an enquiry had been held by the appellant and in that enquiry it had been found that the Kailash Singh had assaulted Mr. Jain. The tribunal was impressed by the fact that the name of Kailash Singh had not been mentioned by Mr. Podder in the first information report made by him. Whether or not the omission to mention Kailash Singh's name in the first information report is decisive of the matter does not really fall to be considered when the case of Kailash Singh is being dealt with. Kailash Singh had been served with chargesheet and an enquiry had been held into the allegations against him. If at the said enquiry the officer came to the conclusion that the charge against Kailash Singh had been proved it was not open to the tribunal to enquire whether the said conclusion of the domestic enquiry was valid or not; and so we do not think that the tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that Kailash Singh should not be dismissed solely on the ground that his name had not been mentioned by Mr. Podder in his first information report. It is not found by the tribunal that the finding of the enquiry is perverse or that the proposed dismissal of Kailash Singh amounts to an act of victimization. That being so, we see no justification for refusing to accord approval to the appellant for dismissing Kailash Singh.Then, in regard to the case of Rampati Singh and Ram Janam Singh the two reasons given by the tribunal need to be examined. The tribunal has found that these names are not mentioned by Mr. Podder in the first information report; and it has also found that though two other witnesses implicate Rampati Singh and Ram Janam Singh, the infirmity in respect of that evidence is that they did not make their statements before the police. Since no enquiry had been held in respect of these persons, it was open to the tribunal to consider the merits of the case for itself, and it was open to the tribunal again to take into account the fact that these two names had not been mentioned by Mr. Podder in the first information report. But unfortunately the tribunal seems to have overlooked the fact that its criticism against the two other witnesses Burman and Tripathi was not valid, because both these witnesses had stated that their statements had been recorded before the police. It is significant that the evidence of these two witnesses has been accepted by the tribunal when it accorded its approval to the appellant's action of dismissing the other employees mentioned in the application, and the general conclusion recorded by the tribunal clearly is that all the persons mentioned in the application were present at the scene of the offence and had gone there not to rescue Mr. Mehta but to help him. If the evidence given by Burman and Tripathi is considered in the light of the two general findings recorded by the tribunal, it seems difficult to sustain the conclusion that the appellant is not entitled to dismiss them. The criticism made by the tribunal against the two witnesses is not justified by the record and in that sense the tribunal must be held to have misdirected itself on the point. Besides, its general conclusion which is justified by the pleading of the parties is also inconsistent with its view that the appellant had not made out a prima facie case for the dismissal of Rampati Singh and Ram Janam Singh. Therefore, we must hold that the tribunal was in error in not according approval to the appellant for the dismissal of these two persons as well.In the result the two appeals are allowed and the applications made by the appellant to the tribunal for its approval for the dismissal of Kailash Singh as well as Rampati Singh and Ram Janam Singh are allowed. No order as to costs.;