GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. - (1.) IN this appeal by special leave which has been brought to this Court by the appellants, the workmen of the Assam Match Co., Ltd., Dhubri, against the respondent, their employer, the management of the Assam Match Co. Ltd., Dhubri, the only point which has been raised for our decision is about the legality and the validity of the order passed by the Tribunal directing that passed by the Tribunal directing that K. K. Dutt should not be reinstated in service but should be granted relief in the shape of compensation only.
(2.) THE Tribunal has found that the domestic enquiry which was held by the respondent against Dutt for his alleged misconduct was unfair and invalid. It has also found on the merits that the charges framed against Dutt at the said enquiry were baseless and the finding recorded at the said enquiry in respect of the said charges were wholly unjustified and could be characterised as perverse. Even so, the Tribunal took the view that it was clear from the charges framed against Dutt "that there may not be any cordial relationship between the parties if Dutt be reinstated" and on that ground alone the Tribunal refused to direct the reinstatement of Dutt. The appellants contend that this order is plainly erroneous in law and must be set aside. Dutt was serving as a motor vehicle foreman under the management of the respondent for nearly 11 years on a monthly emolument of Rs. 400. It is not disputed that throughout his career, there has been not blemish on his character and that he had been discharging his duties faithfully and honestly to the satisfaction of the respondent. On the 2nd of February, 1959 Dutt received a latter from the respondent calling upon him to offer his explanation in respect of the different items of misconduct alleged to have been committed by him. It is this letter which ultimately led to the framing of the relevant charges against Dutt and a domestic enquiry followed. As a result of the findings recorded at the said enquiry, Dutt was dismissed from service on the February 27, 1959. This order of dismissal became the subject-matter of an industrial dispute between the appellants and the respondent and it was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal against whose award the present appeal has been preferred.
(3.) THREE charges were framed against Dutt at the domestic enquiry. The first charge was in relation to the theft of 8 gallons of petrol alleged to have been committed by another employee, Tazamal Hussain, who was also charge-sheeted along with Dutt. The second charge consisted of two parts; charge 2(a) related to the allegation that Dutt had sent out Tazamal Hussain twice with a lorry which had been given to Dutt and his friends for going on a picnic according to the practice prevailing in the undertaking of the appellants. Charge 2(b) was in respect of the taking of a new battery for the lorry without the requisite permission, . The third charge was in regard to the tampering with the road permit alleged to have been committed by Dutt. It is common ground that according to the usual practice the employees of the respondent, including Dutt and Hussain, had gone on a picnic to Deosri. Hussain was the driver of the lorry that drove the party on the occasion of this picnic. As we have already indicated, the Tribunal has made findings in favour of Dutt on the two main issues which arose before it The first question which arose was whether the domestic enquiry was properly conducted. The Tribunal answered this question against the respondent. The second question was whether on the merits, the respondent satisfied the Tribunal that the charges framed against Dutt were proved. This question has also been answered against the respondent. The same answers have been rendered by the Tribunal in respect of the charges framed against Hussain. In the case of Hussain, the Tribunal has directed, that he should be reinstated in service and has ordered the respondent to pay him his wages from the date of his dismissal until the date of reinstatement. A similar order of reinstatement was, however, not passed in the case of Dutt, because the Tribunal thought that Dutt's reinstatement would not lead to cordial relations between the parties, and so the only question which we have to consider is whether the sole reason on which the Tribunal has based its decision not to direct the reinstatement of Dutt is valid in law.;