Vaidialingam, J. - (1.) This appeal, by special leave, is against the order dated March 16, 1967 of the Delhi Administration, Special Industrial Tribunal, dismissing an application filed by the appellant under S. 33 (1) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) and declining to grant permission to dismiss the respondent workman.
(2.) The appellant is a public limited company owning textile mills called Delhi Cloth Mills (D.C.M.) situated in Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi, and Swatantra Bharat Mills (S.B.M.) situated at Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. The respondent, at the material time, was working in the Delhi Cloth Mills. As there was a dispute between the management and the workmen regarding the payment of bonus for the year 1964-65, the Union served notice of a proposed strike on February 1,1966. According to the appellant, the strike was illegal for the reason that the Textile Industries have been declared to be industries of public utility service by the Chief Commissioner, Delhi and conciliation proceedings had already been commenced when the strike notice was received by the appellant. In addition to this circumstance, according to the appellant, there were also binding Conciliation Board Settlement dated December 29,1964 prohibiting the strike. The respondent workman, according to the management, participated in the illegal strike and he also incited and instigated other workmen to join the illegal strike. The appellant issued a charge sheet dated February 7, 1966 to the respondent in respect of his participation in the illegal strike on February 1, 1966 and to his having incited and instigated the other workmen to join the said illegal strike. According to the appellant, the allegations constitute misconduct under the Company's Standing Order No. 27 (b). The workman was required to furnish his explanation within two days of the receipt of the charge sheet.
(3.) Immediately on receipt of the charge sheet, the workman sent a reply dated February 12, 1966 denying the allegations made therein. He denied that there was any conciliation proceedings and that there was any settlement as alleged in the charge sheet. Further, on merits he pleaded that he neither took part in any illegal strike, nor incited any other workman to go on strike. According to him, when he went for duty on the date in question, he was informed that the mill was not working as there was a strike and he returned home. He further pointed out in his reply that as the time given to him for furnishing the explanation was very short he was sending only a very brief explanation.;