Jaswant Singh, J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated November 19, 1970 of the High Court of Delhi rendered in Civil Writ Petition No. 373 of 1969 setting aside the order dated April 23, 1969 of the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, rejecting respondent No. 1"s application under S. 33 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") seeking approval of its order of the appellant"s dismissal from service passed during the pendency of an industrial dispute.
(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are:Behind the premises situate on Najafgarh Road, Delhi of respondent No. 1 which is a unit of the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") there is a plot of land admeasuring 181 acres, ownership whereof was transferred in favour of the Company by the erstwhile Delhi Improvement Trust (now constituted as Delhi Development Authority) vide sale deed dated May 20, 1964. The plot being adjacent to the premises of respondent No. 1, the same was being looked after by the management of the respondent which also constructed some quarters thereon for the use of its employees. There are also some jhuggies (hutments) standing on the land in which live 172 families out of which 70 are of the employees of respondent No. 1 and the rest are of some outsiders. After taking over the watch and ward of the plot, the management of respondent No. 1 posted some sentries to prevent encroachment and unauthorised construction thereon. On the Company"s taking up construction of a boundary wall on the aforesaid plot in April or May, 1967, the appellant, who was the President (Pradhan) of the Jhuggi Jhoupari Sudhar Sabha and a few other jhuggi dwellers brought a suit, being suit No. 418 of 1967 in the court of the Sub-Judge, First Class, Delhi for injunction restraining the Company and respondent No. 1 from constructing the boundary wall and from evicting them from the jhuggies. On the basis of the voluntary statement made on behalf of the Company to the effect that it would not evict the appellant and his co-plaintiffs except by a due process of law, the Sub-Judge issued a temporary injunction restraining the Company and respondent No. 1 from evicting the appellant and his co-plaintiffs except by a due process of law but refused their prayer for injunction restraining the Company and respondent No. 1 from building the boundary wall. The Sub-Judge, however, directed the Company and respondent No. 1 to leave 10 feet wide gate for the passage of the appellant and his co-plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the rejection of their prayer with regard to issue of injunction regarding construction of the boundary wall, the appellant and his co-plaintiffs preferred an appeal to the Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi, who dismissed the same by his order dated February 28, 1968 observing: "The dispute between the parties is only regarding the construction of the boundary wall along the Najafgarh Drain. This boundary wall is admittedly sought to be constructed by the defendant-respondents in their own land and the plaintiffs appellants did not claim any right of ownership in the site on which the Jhuggies existed or on which the wall in question is sought to be constructed. The appellants had not claimed any right of easement or irrevocable licence against the construction of this wall and so, they do not appear to have any right to compel the defendants-respondents not to construct this wall. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended before me that their passage from the jhuggies towards the Najafgarh Drain would be obstructed by the construction of this wall. The learned trial court, it appears, ordered the defendant to leave a gate of about 10 feet width for the passage of the jhuggi dwellers, while constructing the boundary wall in question. The learned trial court exercised the discretion keeping in view the right of the defendants to construct the boundary wall in their own land as also the convenience of plaintiffs-appellants. There is hardly any justification to interfere in the discretion exercised by the learned trial court."
(3.) On the evening of March 2, 1968, Shyam Singh, Assistant Security Officer of respondent No. 1 received a report from sentry Dharam Singh alleging that one Sheo Ram had started making an unauthorised construction on the aforesaid plot. In the discharge of his official duties of preventing encroachment and unauthorised construction on the immovable property belonging to the Company, Shyam Singh proceeded to the spot accompanied by two members of his staff to investigate into the matter. On reaching the spot and finding Sheo Ram constructing a new jhuggi in front of his existing jhuggi, Shyam Singh pleaded with the former and asked him to desist from constructing the new jhuggi. While he was so engaged, the appellant who was also an employee of respondent No. 1 made his appearance along with eight to ten jhuggi dwellers and adopting a very aggressive attitude intervened on behalf of Sheo Ram and questioned the authority of Shyam Singh, who was senior to him, to make inquiries in regard to the construction during the pendency of the aforesaid litigation. He also manhandled Shyam Singh, hurled highly provocative invectives at him and his companions and bade them to quit on pain of dire consequences. Unnerved by the threats held out by the appellant, Shyam Singh left the place along with his security personnel and hastened to make a report of the incident to his immediate superior which led to the suspension of the appellant and issue to him of a notice by General Manager of respondent No. 1 calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed for his aforesaid misbehaviour towards and attempt to assault Shyam Singh who was discharging his official duties which were acts subversive of discipline within the meaning of Standing Order 27 (i) applicable to him. The appellant submitted his explanation denying the charges levelled against him and questioning the authority of the respondent to charge-sheet him in respect of an incident which was purely private. Not satisfied with the explanation tendered by the appellant, the management of respondent No. 1 detailed two of its officers to inquire into the aforesaid charges against the appellant. On completion of the inquiry in accordance with the Standing Orders, the Enquiry Officers submitted a unanimous report observing therein that it was not the appellant"s case that either Sheo Ram or any other person was being evicted from any of the jhuggies standing on the area which was admittedly known as "D. C. M. Chemical Works Jhuggi Area", that it was clear that Dharam Singh, a member of the watch and ward staff placed on duty to protect the property of the Company had noticed Sheo Ram constructing new walls in front of his jhuggi; that on reaching the spot on the evening of March 2, 1968, Shyam Singh saw the freshly constructed walls of the height of about 5 feet and some building material lying in front of Sheo Ram"s jhuggi and was accordingly justified in investigating into the matter; that when Shyam Singh was telling Sheo Ram that he should not construct a new jhuggi or extend the jhuggi, the appellant questioned the authority of Shyam Singh, and abused and manhandled him and in so doing was guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Standing Order 27 (i). It would be profitable to refer to the concluding portion of the report which reads thus:- "Shri Shyam Singh is a member of the Security Staff and a responsible officer of the Company. Shri Shyam Singh is an officer of the Company and is senior to Shri Lalla Ram. In the discharge of official duties of protecting the property of the Company and preventing its misuse, if Shri Shyam Singh wanted to investigate into the matter reported to him by Shri Dharam Singh he was perfectly within his rights. The action of Shri Lalla Ram is certainly not justified in so far as he intervened and obstructed Shri Shyam and other security staff; and in the process Shri Lalla Ram questioned the authority of a superior officer/security staff, called him and his sepoys "GONDAS" caught hold of him by his hand and pushed him and threatened him ... ... ... Shri Lalla Ram also said that they were not afraid of the uniform i.e. security staff, who are meant for safeguarding the property of the company and enforcing the discipline. Under the circumstances, we conclude that Shri Lalla Ram committed the acts alleged against him, namely, obstructing the assistant security officer in the discharge of official duties, and threatening him and catching hold of him by hand and thereby committed acts subversive of discipline, a misconduct under the Standing Order No. 27 (i). We find Shri Lalla Ram guilty of the charge.";