Wanchoo, J. - (1.) These are two appeals by the managemeat by special leave in an industrial matter arising out of two applications under S. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called the Act). The facts of the case are briefly these:The appellant, M/s. Sasa Musa Sugar Works (Private) Ltd. is a sugar factory in district Saran (Bihar). The factory was established in 1932. In June 1942 a trade union was formed in this factory. In July 1943, trouble arose between the workmen and the management resulting in the discharge of three office-bearers of the union, including one Shams-ud-din, who was then the joint secretary. That matter was referred to adjudication and the discharged workmen were ordered to be reinstated in the beginning of 1944. In December 1944, there was trouble again and a large number of workmen were dismissed, including Shams-ud-din, who had by now become the president of the union. This dispute was again referred to an Industrial Tribunal, which again ordered reinstatement of the dismissed workmen in August 1947. There was peace for some time after this. But in June 1951, the management again discharged seventeen workmen including Shams-ud-din, who was at that time secretary of the union. The trouble continued up to December 1951, when an agreement was arrived at between the union an the management, as a result of which twelve of the workmen were reinstated but five, including Shams-ud-din, were not and their cases were to be referred to adjudication. It appears, however that another reference between the management and its workmen was already pending since September 8, 1951, before an Industrial Tribunal, when this agreement was arrived at. Thereafter the work in the factory proceeded smoothly for some time. But on January 1, 1952, a notice was issued by the union to the management enlisting as many as 40 demands and it was threatened that if the demands were not met within seven days, the union would have to advise the workmen to adopt go-slow and can upon them to offer passive resistance with effect form January 9, 1952 and take all legitimate means to see that the decision of go-slow was carried out till the demands of the union were fulfilled. This notice was received by the management on January 4, which immediately contacted the officers of the Labour Department as well as the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Godalganj. On January 8, the Deputy Labour Commissioner wrote to the union that as the conciliation officer was busy in the general elections, the status quo should be maintained till the elections were over, so that the matter might be looked into by the conciliation officer. The union, however, gave no heed to this advice and go-slow began from January 9 and was continued till January 12, 1952. Then the labour Commissioner himself came to the factory on January 12 and advised Shams-ud-din who was the moving spirit behind all this to call off the go slow, as it was proposed to start conciliation proceedings at Patna on January 17, 1952 Conciliation proceedings then began on January 17 and an agreement was arrived at as to some of the demands on January 23, and it was decided that further conciliation proceedings would be held in February. But in spite of this agreement go-slow was again resorted to form January 24 to January 31. In the meantime, the Labour Officer had arrived at the factory on January 28, 1952 and further talks too place. The workmen, however, did not pay heed to the advice of the Labour Officer. He, therefore, reported on January 31 to the Labour Commissioner that go-slow was still continuing. The Labour Commissioner then ordered the Labour Officer to tell the workmen that no further conciliation proceedings would take place until the go-slow was called off. The Labour Officer then informed the management that it could take disciplinary action against the workmen concerned with the permission of the Industrial Tribunal. Consequently, the management suspended thirty-three workmen by a notice given on the night of January 31 as from February 1. It was said in the notice that these thirty-three workmen had been found taking a leading part in the unjustified go-slow which was in contravention of the Act and they were therefore suspended from service until further orders. This notice had some good effect and work improved for four days; but from February 5 go-slow was started again. Consequently, the management suspended seven more workmen from February 6 and eight more from February 7 by giving notice to them in the same terms in which the notice had been given to the thirty three workmen, on January 31. As adjudication proceedings were pending since September 1951 between the management and its workmen, the former applied on February 6, 1952, under S. 33 of the Act for permission to dismiss the thirty-three workmen and on February 11, 1952, for permission to dismiss the remaining fifteen workmen who had been suspended later. The forty-eight workmen in their turn applied on March 29, 1952, under S. 33-A of the Act to the Industrial Tribunal and their case was that they had been suspended as a measure of punishment and that as this was done without the sanction of the Industrial Tribunal, the management had committed a breach of S. 33.
(2.) The three applications were tried together by the Industrial Tribunal and the contentions raised before it were these: (1) The management's applications under S. 33 had not been preceded by any enquiry into the misconduct of the workmen and were, therefore, liable to be rejected; (2) The order of suspension in this case amounted to punishment and therefore S. 33 had been contravened; and (3) There was an unjustified go-slow by the workmen in January and February 1952. On the first point, the Industrial Tribunal found that no enquiry had been held by the management before the two applications under S. 33 were made; but it held that all the evidence which could have been taken in the enquiry by the management had been led before it and it was in full possession of the facts, and no question of any prejudice to the workmen arose, as it would be open to it on a review of the entire evidence before it to decide whether the applications for permission to dismiss should be granted or not. On the second point, it held that the order of suspension was not as a measure of punishment in the circumstances of this case and that it was an order pending enquiry by the management and proceedings under S. 33 before the tribunal, and that, as there were no Standing Orders as to suspension in this factory, the management's liability to pay the workmen their wages during the period of suspension remained. On the third point, the Industrial Tribunal, after an elaborate discussion of the evidence, came to the conclusion that there was a deliberate go-slow resorted to by the workmen in January and February 1952 and that it was unjustified as it took place while conciliation proceeding were pending.
(3.) Having given these findings, the Industrial Tribunal had then to decide what orders it should pass on the applications under S. 33 and S. 33-A. It held that there was no evidence to show that of the forty-eight workmen concerned, sixteen workmen named by it had taken part in the go-slow or instigated it. It therefore refused the application under S. 33 with respect to these sixteen workmen. As to the remaining thirty-two workmen it held that as some Standing Orders which were under contemplation at the time provided either dismissal or suspension for seven days in case of misconduct, it was proper to grant leave to the management to suspend the workmen for seven days, in view of some opinion expressed by a Go-Slow Committee appointed some time before by the Bihar Central (Standing) Labour Advisory Board. In effect, therefore, it rejected the prayer of the management for dismissal with respect to these thirty-two workmen also. Finally, it rejected the application under section 33-A.;