K. N. Wanchoo, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India in the matter of the discharge of an employee of the appellant. The appellant is a coal mining company carrying on business in the district of Manbhum (Bihar) and is governed by "Standing Orders for the Coal Mining Industry" as certified by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Appellate Authority) on 8-4-1950 under S. 6 (2) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, XX of 1948. The respondent was a ration clerk in the employ of the appellant. The appellant's case is that the respondent went into the rice-godown on 7-4-1954 without any authority and created a scene by shourting in the presence of workmen and accusing the clerk in-charge of the rice-godown of deliberately giving short weight and also threatened that clerk. There was a complaint about this incident to the Colliery Superintendent, who sent for the respondent and made inquiries in the presence of the office manager. The respondent explained that he was joking. Thereupon the Colliery Superintendent pointed out to him the serious results which might have ensued from his action. The respondent then admitted his fault and apologized, and no further proceedings were consequently taken. On 24-4-1954, however, the respondent addressed a letter to the union, a copy of which was forwarded by it to the Colliery Superintendent. In that letter, according to the appellant, he made various false allegations against the Colliery Superintendent and the office manager. Thereupon the appellant decided to hold a thorough investigation into the matter and eventually a charge-sheet was delivered to the respondent on 3-5-1954 and he was asked to submit his explanation. The explanation was received on 5-5-1954 and an inquiry was held on May 6. Thereafter the respondent was suspended from May 7, pending completion of the inquiry. The inquiry-officer made his report on May 10. In the meantime, however, the respondent made certain allegations as to the manner in which the inquiry was made on May 6, and his complaint was that he had been forced to make a statement during the inquiry. So a further opportunity was given to him to say what he had to say and a further report was made on May 17. Thereafter the respondent was suspended from May 20, 1954, without pay. As a dispute was pending before the All India Industrial Tribunal at the time, the appellant applied under S. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called the Act) to the Tribunal for permission to dismiss the respondent in the interest of maintenance of discipline. The suspension from 20-5-1954, was pending permission of the Industrial Tribunal. The respondent in his turn made an application to the said Tribunal under S. 33-A of the Act that he had been dismissed from service on 20-5-1954, with effect from 7-5-1954, and that this was against S. 33 of the Act inasmuch as express permission in writing from the Industrial Tribunal had not been taken before such dismissal.
(2.) These were the two original applications under Ss. 33 and 33-A of the Act by the two parties. Later, both the parties prayed for amendment of their applications. The appellant prayed that in addition to the prayer for permission to dismiss the respondent, it might, in the alternative, be given permission to discharge the respondent. The respondent, on the other hand, prayed that his application u/s. 33-A might be amended by substituting 'suspension' for 'dismissal', and his case by the amendment was that he had been suspended for more than ten days in breach of cl. 27 of the Standing Orders, and this amounted to an alteration in his conditions of service to his prejudice and could not be done without the express permission of the Industrial Tribunal under S. 33 of the Act. The Industrial Tribunal allowed the amendments prayed for by both the parties with their consent. Thus the prayer of the appellant finally was for permission either to dismiss or to discharge the respondent. The prayer of the respondent finally was that action should be taken against the appellant for suspending him for more than ten days without pay against cl. 27 of the Standing Orders without the permission of the Tribunal.
(3.) The two matters were heard together by the Industrial Tribunal. It came to the conclusion that the appellant was not entitled to dismiss the respondent on the ground of misconduct on the charge framed against him. It then went on to consider whether a case for granting permission to discharge had been made out. It came to the conclusion that the appellant would be perfectly justified in discharging the respondent from employment. It further held that the discharge in the circumstances amounted to retrenchment within the meaning of S. 25-F of the Act. It, therefore, ordered the appellant to pay to the respondent his total emoluments from 7-5-1954 up to the date of publication of its award and also wages for a month in lieu of notice and compensation equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of service or any paid thereof in excess of six months, as provided under S. 25-F of the Act. It also in effect dismissed the application of the respondent under S. 33-A, though not in so many words.;