- (1.) THE petitioner, Shanker Flour, Rice and Dal Mills, Bareilly, is a partnership firm carrying on the business of flour-milling. On 12 September 1960 it framed three charges against one of its workmen, Mani Ram, the charges being: (1) That he demanded Rs. 2 as subscription for the union from Sri Sahib Singh, chaukidar, on 30 August 1960, in the karkhana and on his refusal to pay the same quarrelled with him and held out threats. (2) That when Sri Sahib Singh did not pay the subscription he was threatened and in order to harass him, began to heap refuse in front of his quarter from 3 September 1960 and on his protest did not stop it. (3) That on account of his negligence there was a breakdown in the boiler from 19 to 23 August 1960 and thereafter the working of the engine was also adversely affected and from the investigation of it all from an outside engineer it was found that the defect in the working of the boiler was there from several days before the breakdown and as a result of the accumulation of those defects there was a breakdown which affected adversely the production in the factory and that it was deliberate negligence on his part in looking after the engine and the boiler which resulted in the defects. The domestic enquiry held by the management found that the second charge was not made out against the workman but that he was guilty of the first and third charges. The enquiring officer recommended the workman's dismissal. On 14 October 1960 the petitioner dismissed Mani Ram from its service. An industrial dispute was raised by Shanker Flour Mill Workers' Union which had espoused the cause of Mani Ram complaining of his dismissal. It appears that the State Government declined to refer the dispute for adjudication. Subsequently, 1 however, the dispute was referred by it to] the labour court for decision on the following matter: Whether the employers terminated the services of their workman, Mani Ram, son of Dull Chand, oilman, with effect from 14 October 1960, legally and/or justifiably ? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled ?
(2.) THE labour court made its award on 12 February 1962, holding that the dismissal of Mani Ram was illegal and unjustified and directing his reinstatement with continuity of service. Aggrieved by the award, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for certiorari.
(3.) THE labour court has found that the reference of the dispute was not invalid, that the third charge was vague and in any event on the basis of the allegations contained in the charge itself the negligence was one falling under standing order 22 (6) and not under standing order 20 (j) and, therefore, the workman could only be censured or warned but could not be dismissed, that the charges were framed and dismissal effected in order to victimize the workman, and that the domestic enquiry suffered from a serious defect in that the report of the expert, Kedesia, on the basis of which the workman had been accused of negligence under the third charge had not been filed on the record and Kedesia had not been produced. Further, the labour court found that in awarding the punishment of dismissal the petitioner did not take into account, as it was bound to, the previous record of the workman.;