- (1.) This is a Writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution against an order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal dated 19-5-52. The application is a belated one and even on that account we were inclined to dismiss it. We are, however, of the opinion that even on the merits the application has no force.
(2.) One Lalta Prasad was employed as a weaver in the firm of the opposite party No. 1. He was paid wages according to the yardage woven by him. To get more wages than the amount of work done by him entitled him to, he used certain fraudulent methods which were detected in September, 1950. The management after making proper enquiries dismissed him. There was an appeal filed before the Regional Conciliation Board which came to, the conclusion that Lalta Prasad had been guilty of mis conduct and that his previous record had also not been satisfactory. The Regional Conciliation Board was, therefore, of the opinion that he was rightly dismissed. It was against the order of the Regional Conciliation Board a further appeal was filed before the Industrial Court. The learned Judge held that Lalta Pra sad was guilty of misconduct which made him liable to summary dismissal under standing Order 24 (a). After having come to that finding, he added as follows on the question of punishment: "On the question of punishment, however, I am of the opinion that dismissal, under the circumstances, was uncalled for. Appellant was warned on 23-6-50, and suspended for one day in January 1949. It was stated at the bar that the appellant has put in about four years' service. Under the circumstances, agreeing with the opinion of the assessor, I modify the award of the Board in this way that Lalta Prasad would be reinstated, but without any pay for the period of his unemployment." Against the order of the Industrial Tribunal dated 21-4-1951, there was an appeal filed under Section 7, Industrial Disputes Appellate Tribunal Act (Act XLVIII of 1950). Section 7 gives a right of appeal against certain specified orders and also in a case where the appeal involves any substantial question of law. The order passed by the Industrial Court is admittedly not one of the several orders mentioned in Section 7 against which an appeal is specifically provided and the appeal should, therefore, have involved a substantial question of law before it could be entertained by the Appellate Tribunal.
(3.) The question raised in this Writ Application is that the case involved no question of law, and at any rate, it did not raise any substantial question of law and the Appellate Tribunal, therefore, had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, differ from the conclusion arrived at by the Industrial Court and hold that the order of dismissal should not have been set aside.;