- (1.) -In Ref. 27 of 1964 between the appellant company and its workmen three questions were referred to the Industrial tribunal for ad- indication: (1) whether the discharge/dismissal of the 10 workmen named therein was proper and justified ; if not, whether they were entitled to rein- statement or any. other relief; (2} whether the existing educational facilities provided by the management to the dependents of the workmen were adequate; if nor. what additional facilities the company should provide; and (3) whether to existing medical facilities provided by the company to the workmen and their families were adequate ; if not, what additional facilities it should provide. As regards question the company had. held domestic enquiresagainst workmen 1 to 7 and on conclusion thereof the General Manager accepting the findings of the enquiry officer, had passed orders of dismissal. So far as workmen 8 and 10 were concerned, the company had removed their names from its rolls on the ground that they had abandoned their employment. Workman No. 9, Ram Manohar Dubey, was discharged from service on the ground that due to certain activities of his the management had lost confidence in him and considered his being continued in service as prejudicial to the company's interests.
(2.) The tribunal gave an elaborate award and held that the said enquiries were not properly held, that they suffered from breach of the principles of natural justice and that the said orders of discharge and dismissal were mala fide and were the result of victimisation. The tribunal quashed the said orders and except in the case of the said Dubey, directed reinstatement. In the case of Dubey, it directed that he should not be reinstated but that the company should pay his back wages from the date of his discharge up to the date of the award. On questions 2 and 3 the tribunal directed the company to start a new High School as soon as possible and to construct a "full fledged" hospital within three years from the date of the award inspite of the existing provisions made by the company for incurring annual expenditure of Rs. 3 lakhs and Rs. 15 lakhs for educational and medical amenities respectively. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the correctness and validity of the said award.
(3.) Mr. Chagla for the company stated that the company would press the appeal on the first question only against the workmen (1) , Satpal, (2) vishnu Lal, (3) B. B. Prasad, (4) B. P. Singh, and (5) Ram Manohar Dubey and not against the rest as the company has either reinstated some of them or the appeal has abated as in the case of Kalika Awasthy on account of his death. Mr. Nag for the workmen, on the other hand, stated that he was not in a position to support the award on questions 2 and 3 and that therefore on those questions it may be set aside and the company's appeal to that extent may be allowed. The question, therefore, which remains for our determination is whether the tribunal was right in holding that the orders of dismissal in respect of Satpal, Vishnu Lal, B. B. Prasad and B. P. Singh and the order of discharge against the said Dubey were rightly set aside by the Tribunal and its orders of reinstatement and compensation are valid;