Gajendragadkar, J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave arises out of an industrial dispute between M/s. Tika ram and Sons Ltd. Oil Mills, Aligarh (hereafter called the appellant) and its workman Bishamber Dayal (hereafter called the respondent). The appellant had purported to terminate the services of the respondent, and at the instance of the respondent the dispute in regard to the said termination of his services was referred for adjudication. The tribunal as well as the appellate tribunal have held that the appellant was not justified in dismissing the respondent and so an order has been passed directing the appellant to reinstate respondent in his old job with continuity of service and to pay him the subsistence allowance and pay as specified in the award. It is this order which is challenged before us in the present appeal.
(2.) It appears that the respondent was employed as a Munim (accounts clerk) by the appellant from October 25, 1948 to August 31, 1951. On September 1, 1951, the respondent took one day's leave but did not return to his job in spite of repeated calls. He was marked 'on leave' on 1-9-1951 and treated as absent for one month thereafter. Meanwhile the appellant came to know that the respondent had made certain false entries in its books of account with a view to misappropriate a Bank Draft of Rs. 1,422 which was issued in favour of the appellant. Thereupon the appellant filed a criminal complaint against the respondent and two others under Ss. 408, 477A and 465 of the Indian Penal Code. This complaint was dismissed by the learned magistrate on April 21, 1953. The appellant moved the learned Sessions Judge at Aligarh in revision but the said revisional application was also dismissed on February 17, 1954.
(3.) On April 22, 1954 the respondent moved the Regional Conciliation Officer for settlement of his dispute with the appellant. He alleged that the appellant had wrongfully terminated his services whereas according to the appellant the services had been terminated for misconduct as shown by the falsification of accounts made by him. Since the Conciliation Officer was unable to settle the dispute, he made a report and thereafter the present dispute was referred for industrial adjudication.;