MUDHOLKAR, J. - (1.) THESE are two connected appeals; one is against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing an appeal under Letters Patent from the order of a single Judge dismissing a writ petition. In this writ petition the appellant had challenged the correctness of the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissing an appeal preferred by the appellant against an award made by the industrial tribunal, Kanpur. The writ petition was dismissed by the single Judge on the ground that the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, had ceased to exist and that the record of the case was at Bombay and not within the State of Uttar Pradesh. This view was upheld by the Division Bench. The other appeal is directed against the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal and has been brought by special leave granted by this Court on 12 October, 1959. It may be mentioned that the latter appeal was preferred after a long delay of about three years, but that delay has already been condoned by this Court.
(2.) THE dispute which was refereed to the industrial tribunal by the Government of Uttar Pradesh was as follows : - "Whether the employers have wrongfully and/or unjustifiably terminated the services of Mahabir Prasad, son of Satya Narain, bungalow electrician, with effect from 2 June, 1955 ? If so, to what relief is the workman entitled - Mahabir Prasad was employed as an electrician in the power house of the J. K. Cotton and Spinning Mills, the respondent before us. On 24 November, 1953 at about 4 p.m. Durga Mali, an employee of the appellant, saw Chhote Lal, electric mazdoor of the power house, coming in a rickshaw. The rickshaw halted near the tank in the premises of the power house. Adjacent to it is a building called "Kamla Nivas." Chhote Lal jumped over the boundary wall of Kamla Nivas and returned with two bags, which Mahabir Prasad stood near the rickshaw. This aroused the suspicion of Durga Mali and he told Manu Lal, sergeant, what he had seen. On seeing the sergeant following them Mahabir Prasad ran towards the bungalow of Sri Srivastava, while Chhote Lal ran towards gate No. 1. The rickshaw was thereupon seized by the sergeant and it was taken to the police station where a report was lodged. The incident was also seen by Ram Niwas who was at that time cleaning utensils in his quarters. Eventually both Mahabir Prasad and Chhote Lal were tried for an offence of theft. On 23 March, 1955 each of them was convicted by the Magistrate, first class, Kanpur, under S. 380, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50. Both of them preferred appeals against their convictions and were acquitted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge on 8 September, 1955.On 5 December, 1953 Mahabir Prasad was served with a chargesheet by registered post as also Chhote Lal and both were required to present themselves for enquiry on 9 December, 1953. Neither of them, however, appeared personally on that date, nor did they submit any explanation. The enquiry officer, in order to give them a further chance adjourned the enquiry to 25 December, 1953 and as Mahabir Prasad was on leave the date was intimated to him by post. Mahabir Prasad replied by a letter dated 31 December asking for further time to appear and the hearing was adjourned to 29 January, 1954. A letter was also sent to him intimating the adjourned date on which he was required to appear. He, however, informed the enquiry officer that he did not want to take part in the enquiry and would submit his statement and defence only before the Magistrate who was trying the case. He also requested that the enquiry be adjourned till the decision of the criminal case. This request was granted by the enquiry officer. It was only after the decision of the criminal case that the enquiry was taken up. That was on 8 April, 1955. Intimation of this date was given to Mahabir Prasad by a letter dated 2 April, 1955. He did not appear on that date either. In his reply which was received on 7 April, 1955 he prayed for adjournment of the enquiry till the decision of the appeal which he intended to prefer against his conviction and sentence. He was, however, informed that no further adjournment was possible. It was in these circumstances that the enquiry officer proceeded with the enquiry in the absence of the responded. As pointed out by this Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills, Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan [1960 - I L.L.J. 520] the principles of natural justice do not require that the employer must wait for the decision of a criminal case or an appeal before proceeding with a domestic enquiry. Three persons were examined by the enquiry officer :(1) Sir Mannu Lal, assistant security officer, (2) Durga Mali, and (3) Ram Niwas. In his order the enquiry officer has observed as follows : - "After going into all the statements carefully and after examining the conduct of the workmen before me, I am satisfied that he is guilty of the charge laid against him. As he is guilty of gross misconduct of stealing company's property he cannot be allowed to stay any further in the mills."
(3.) IT will appear that an industrial dispute was then pending between the management and the workers and therefore the permission of the regional conciliation officer to dismiss Mahabir Prasad was sought by the appellant. This permission was granted and Mahabir Prasad was dismissed from service. It will appear that after the acquittal of Mahabir Prasad and the refusal of the appellant to reinstate him, the workmen of the appellant represented by Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh approached the State Government for referring the dispute to the industrial tribunal. That is how the reference with which we are concerned in this case came to be made. The industrial tribunal curiously enough dealt with the matter as if it was hearing an appeal from the decision of the domestic tribunal and proceeded to record evidence of witnesses on behalf of the union and on behalf of the appellant. In the course of the award the tribunal observed "The management has not proved anything more than this theft case which can be a cause for the dismissal of the worker ... but I cannot close my eyes to the bare fact which came out during the evidence before me. The management has utterly failed in convincing me that Mahabir Prasad has really committed the theft." ;