GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. - (1.) THE Tribune is a daily English paper published at Ambala Cantonment. In accordance with the will of the late Sardar Dayal Singh Majitha, respondents 1 to 5 are the trustees appointed under the said will and as such, they look after the affairs of the trust including those of the Tribune. In 1948, the appellant Agnani was appointed by the respondents to work as a sub-editor of the Tribune. Accordingly, the appellant was working in the editorial section of which the editor of the paper was the administrative head. On 2 January, 1950, the respondents considered a complaint received by them from some of the residents of the Tribune Colony regarding the conduct of the appellant. This complaint had reference to an incident which took place in the said an colony on 16 November, 1959. The respondents resolved to hold an enquiry into the alleged misconduct of the appellant and accordingly suspended him with immediate effect. By the resolution passed on this occasion, the respondents appointed R. B. Dewan Badri Das, Kanwar Sir Dalip Singh and Mr. Ram Chandra to conduct the enquiry. The resolution authorized two of these trustees to conduct the enquiry, if necessary. It was resolved that the enquiry should be held after giving the appellant a chargesheet and after receiving his explanation in respect of it.
(2.) THEREAFTER , a chargesheet was served on the appellant on 11 January 1960. It included nine specific charges; charges 1 to 8 had reference to alleged acts of misconduct on the part of the appellant on seven different occasions, the first of them having occurred at the end of 1955, and the last on 17 September, 1959 : charges 9 specifically referred to the incident which took place on 16 November, 1959. Under this last charge, it was alleged that the appellant quarreled with the lessee of the provision store in the Tribune Colony, created a rowdy scene and indulged in abusive and vulgar language.Then followed an enquiry at which evidence was led and the enquiry committee submitted its report on 11 February 1960. According to the findings recorded by the committee, all charges except 3 and 5 had been proved. After this report was received, the respondents considered the matter and came to the conclusion that it was necessary to terminate the service of the appellant, and so, after consulting the acting editor, they resolved that the appellant's services should be terminated with effect from the forenoon of 14 March, 1960, by way of disciplinary action as punishment for his continuous misconduct, and that his account be finally settled by 15 April 1960. This order was passed on 12 March 1960. The dismissal of the appellant was then taken up the union and it became the subject-matter of reference for adjudication on 5 May, 1960. Before the tribunal, it was urged on behalf of the appellant that his dismissal amounted to an unfair labour practice and was intended to victimize the appellant for the prominent part he had taken in organizing the union of the Tribune employees. On the merits, it was contended that the enquiry committee acted without jurisdiction in dealing with charges 1 to 8 and that its finding on charges 9 was also illegal, improper and without jurisdiction. These pleas were resisted by the respondents. They urged that the enquiry committee was competent to deal with all the charges, that its findings on the said charges were perfectly legitimate, that there was no victimization involved in the order of dismissal and that the tribunal could not sit in judgment over the findings of the enquiry committee or consider the propriety of the order of dismissal passed by the respondents.
(3.) THE tribunal held that the resolution by which the enquiry committee was appointed did not authorize the committee to consider any charges other than that relating to the incident that took place on 16 November, 1959 and so, it came to the conclusion that the whole of the enquiry in respect of charges 1 to 8 as well as the findings recorded on them were without jurisdiction. In regard to charges 9, the tribunal held that the incident giving rise to the said charge was, in substance, of such a character as not to attract the disciplinary jurisdiction of the respondents. On behalf of the respondents, reliance was placed on Cl. (9) of S. 10 of the standing orders for pressmen which had subsequently been framed; but the tribunal held that the said clause did not justify the action of the respondents. In conclusion, the tribunal directed the management of the Tribune to reinstate the appellant with continuity of service and full back-wages. Since the tribunal upheld the appellant's two principal contentions, it did not think it necessary to enter into other facts and objections, such as the unfair labour practice, or victimization which had been pleaded by the appellant. This award was pronounced on 25 October 1960.The respondents then challenged the validity of this award by their writ petition in the Punjab High Court on 17 December, 1960. In this writ petition, they alleged that the tribunal had acted without jurisdiction and that its award suffered from errors apparent on the face of the record. That is how they claimed a writ of certiorari and a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction to quash the order of reinstatement passed by the tribunal in favour of the appellant. The contentions raised by the respondents in their writ petition were all traversed by the appellant and it was urged that no case had been made out for the issue of a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 of the Constitution.;