O.H.Mootham, C.J. - (1.) This is an appeal from the order of a learned Judge dated 12-4-1955 quashing an order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal dated 11-7-1953.
(2.) The facts are these. The appellant is a limited company which has a cigarette factory at Saharanpur. The first respondent entered the employment of the appellant Company in the year 1948, and in 1950 he was appointed a Supervisor of the Company's Canteen. On the 23-2-1953, he was Placed under suspension and was charged with certain acts of dishonesty in connection with the Company's property and with having disobeyed a lawful and reasonable order. On 27-2-1953, he was served with an order dismissing him from the appellant Company's service, the order being subject to the granting of permission by the Labour Appellate Tribunal. At that time the appellant Company was of opinion that the permission of the Labour Appellate Tribunal was required under Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, (hereinafter called the Act) as there was then pending before that Tribunal an appeal by the appellant Company against an award made by the State Government on 10-8-1952, in a dispute between the appellant Company and certain of its workmen including the first respondent. Subsequently however the appellant Company was advised that it was unnecessary to obtain the permission of the Labour Appellate Tribunal before dismissing the first respondent, and by a letter dated 22-4-1953, the latter was Informed that his services would be dispensed with on the 26th April following.
(3.) The first respondent then filed an application before the Labour Appellate Tribunal under Section 23 of the Act in which he averred that he had been discharged from the appellant Company's service in contravention of the provisions of Section 22. Before the Tribunal the appellant Company's contentions were that Section 22 of the Act was not applicable as the first respondent was not a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, & that the misconduct of the first respondent justified the Company in discharging him. The Labour Appellate Tribunal took up the second issue first, and as it was of opinion that the appellant Company was fully justified in discharging the first respondent it considered that it was not necessary for it to decide whether the appellant was a workman or not. On the assumption however that the first respondent was a workman it was satisfied that although there had been what It termed a "technical breach" of Section 22, the application failed, and it accordingly dismissed the latter by its order dated 11-7-1953.;