B.N.BANERJEE, J. - (1.) THIS rule is directed against an order, made by the third industrial tribunal, refusing to accord approval to an order of dismissal by the petitioner -company of its workman, Sukumar Chowdhury, for misconduct.
(2.) THE following facts are not disputed. The respondent 2, Sukumar Chowdhury, was a fitter employed in the fitting and assembly department of the petitioner -company. He was charged with misconduct by the works manager of the petitioner -company to the following effect: It has been reported that about 10 -45 pm. on 23 November 1960 you went to the office of the machine chop foreman and started an altercation in a very insolent manner with the foreman Sri N. Chatterjee over job rates of V.B. 7, in course of which you also abused him and threatened him. Your alleged actions as referred to above amounted to disorderly behaviour which is a major misdemeanour according to the certified standing orders of the company. Sukumar Chowdhury was directed to submit his written explanation to the charge. He was also suspended pending enquiry into the charge.
(3.) BY a letter, dated 25 November 1960 (en -closure D to the petition), Sukumar Chowdhury denied the charges levelled against him and characterized them as baseless and mala fide. In the aforesaid letter, he stated that his detailed explanation to the charges would follow. It does not, however, appear that any other explanation was submitted by him.;