Alagiriswami, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in an application made under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act by the appellant for approval of their action in dismissing the respondent.
(2.) The respondent was dismissed while an industrial dispute was pending before the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, the appellant made the application. Four charge-sheets were served on the respondent on 15-12-1965, 31-12-1965, 1-1-1966 and 4-1-l966 containing in all eight charges. On 8th January, 1966 an enquiry officer, proceeded to hold the enquiry. The respondent appeared before the enquiry officer and wanted to consult somebody outside. He came back after about an hour and 15 minutes and the enquiry was resumed. When he was asked to sign the first page of the enquiry proceedings the respondent refused to do so. He again left the enquiry saying that he would consult his companions outside. When one of the Management's witnesses, Mr. P. S. Bedi was about to give his evidence the respondent's brother entered the enquiry room and asked "who is Mr. Gulati. I want to see him and find out his office address and residential address". Mr. Gulati being the enquiry officer. He asked him who he was and he said that he was from the Labour Department. When he was told that he had no business to interfere in the enquiry he flared up. Mr. Motwane, one of the partners of the appellant firm telephoned to the police. The appellant's brother thereupon tried to run away after snatching some paper Mr. Nanak Manager of the appellant company, tried to prevent him from running with the papers. There was a scuffle in which Mr. Nanak's finger got fractured and he also received some blows. The appellant's brother ran away after tearing the papers. The enquiry was adjourned to January 10 and a telegram was sent to the respondent. On the 10th January a telegram was received from respondent's wife saying that he was out of station end requesting postponement of the enquiry. The enquiry was however held and as a result of the enquiry the respondent was dismissed.
(4.) The question of punishment is essentially one for the management to decide. In Workmen v. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co., 1973 (3) SCR 587 = (AIR 1973 SC 1227 this Court elaborately considered the various decisions of this Court regarding the principles governing the jurisdiction of the Tribunal when adjudicating disputes regarding dismissal and discharge. From those decisions they deduced ten broad principles of which the ninth is: "(9) Once the misconduct is proved either in the enquiry conducted by an employer or by the evidence placed before a Tribunal for the first time, punishment imposed cannot be interfered with by the Tribunal except in cases where the punishment is so harsh as to suggest victimisation". We cannot certainly agree that in this case the punishment was so harsh as to suggest victimisation.;