M.C.Desai, J. - (1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for writs of certiorari quashing orders of the State industrial tribunal, Uttar Pradesh and the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Third Bench, Lucknow, and a writ of mandamus directing the State industrial tribunal to re-hear the reference. The applicants are workmen of the Sun Publishers and, advertisers limited, opposite party 3, which has its registered office at Kanpur. on 10 September 1953, Sri S.P. Mehra, the managing director of opposite party 3, framed charges against some workmen including the applicants to the effect that on 9 September 1953, at 1.30 p.m. they under the leadership of R.K. Tewari, applicant 2, Staged an illegal strike without giving previous notice and at 4 p.m. took forcible possession of the press, and called upon them to submit their explanations on 12 September 1953, by 10.30 a.m. The charges were heard by the managing director of opposite party 3 on 12 September 1953. but none of the applicants appeared before him and none of them submitted any explanation. He recorded evidence of some witnesses in support of the charges and being satisfied from the evidence that the charges were proved dismissed the applicants from service on the same day. The applicants and three other workmen who were dismissed with them moved the conciliation board for conciliation of their dispute with the opposite party on 12 September 1953. On 14 September 1953, the managing director received written explanations of the applicants, but was not persuaded to alter the order of dismissal passed against them. The conciliation proceedings started by the applicants proved abortive and the State Government, Uttar Pradesh through its notification, dated 23 December 1953 referred to the State Industrial Tribunal Uttar Pradesh for adjudication the issues whether the employers have wrongfully and/or unjustifiably dismissed their thirteen workmen, given in the Annexure", and "if so, to what relief are the workmen entitled." The dispute was referred for adjudication in exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 3, 4 and 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act (XXVIII of 1947) and in pursuance of the provisions of Clause 10 of G.O. No. 671, dated 15 March 1951. The thirteen workmen named in the annexure included all the applicants. The tribunal proceeded to adjudicate the issue ; the applicants and opposite party 3 produced evidence before it. Through its order, dated 27 February 1954, it maintained the dismissal of Radha Raman and R.K. Tewari, applicants 1 and 2, on the ground that it was neither wrongful nor unjustifiable, held that Kamla Kant, applicant 7, had not been dismissed at all and upheld the grounds of dismissal of the remaining ten workmen but held that the punishment awarded exceeded the gravity of the offence committed by them and ordered them to be reinstated with immediate effect. It found as a matter of fact that the workmen had staged an illegal strike and that their conduct was unruly. The applicants as well as opposite party 3 appealed from the tribunal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Third Bench, Lucknow. The Appellate Tribunal on 8 December 1954 dismissed the appeal of the applicants and allowed that of opposite party 3 and restored the dismissal of the remaining ten workmen also.
(2.) One of the grounds on which the applicants challenged the dismissal before the industrial tribunal was that conciliation proceedings were pending on 12 September 1953, on which date the order of dismissal was passed by opposite party 3, and that opposite party 3 had obtained no permission from the conciliation officer for dismissing them. Admittedly the opposite party did not obtain permission of the conciliation officer for dismissing the workmen, but the allegation that conciliation proceedings were pending on 12 September 1953 was seriously challenged on behalf of the opposite party. The conciliation proceedings were started on an application which does not bear any signature, A witness of the applicants deposed that it was presented before the conciliation officer on 12 September 1953, but the notice issued to the opposite party by the conciliation officer mentioned that the application had been received on 14 September 1953. The industrial tribunal after considering all the evidence concluded that the application for conciliation proceedings was not presented on 12 September 1953 and that no conciliation proceedings were pending on that date. There is no right of appeal from a decision of an industrial tribunal except on a substantive question of law. The finding of the industrial tribunal was essentially one of fact which could not be challenged through appeal. It cannot be challenged before me also in an application for a writ of certiorari which cannot be issued to quash a finding of fact.
(3.) There was a controversy before the industrial tribunal whether the workmen appeared before Sri S.P. Mehra on 12 September 1953 at 10.30 a.m. with their explanations and whether he refused to receive the explanations. The case of Sri Mehra is that none of them appeared before him and he was obliged to hold the inquiry ex parte against them while the case of the applicants is that they appeared before him at the appointed time and that he refused to receive their explanations and that they consequently sent the explanations by post and they reached opposite party 3 on 14 September 1953. The tribunal was satisfied from the evidence that there was no truth in the case set up by the applicants and that they did appear before Sri Mehra during the inquiry. This again is a finding of fact which cannot be disturbed by me. It was open to Sri Mehra to proceed with the enquiry notwithstanding the absence of the workmen; they were at liberty to keep themselves away from the inquiry or not to submit any explanation and Sri Mehra was at liberty to enquire into. the charges without waiting for their presence or explanations. He examined some witnesses and took into account reports made against the workmen. The evidence was sufficient to prove the charges framed against the workmen. The industrial tribunal observed that it was not a court of appeal but a supervisory body and had no jurisdiction to substitute its own finding in place of that of the managing director and consequently refused to consider the evidence in respect of the charges produced before it by the workmen. In other words, the industrial tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hold a fresh inquiry into the charges framed against the workmen by the opposite party. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the view of the industrial tribunal. It was pressed upon me that both the tribunals acted illegally in refusing to consider the evidence of the applicants in defence of the charges.;