B.N.BANERJEE, J. - (1.) THE petitioner company carries on business as planter and as manufacturer and seller of tea and is the owner of a tea estate, known as the Mujnai Tea Garden.
(2.) MANINDRA Bhusan was employed under the petitioner company as a skilled labourer in the aforementioned tea garden. The service conditions of the workmen employed in the petitioner's tea garden are governed by certain standing orders, certified under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The service conditions of Manindra Bhusan Roy were also governed by the said standing orders. It is not disputed that the conduct of Manindra Bhusan Roy, while serving the petitioner company, was unsatisfactory. It is said that he has quarrelsome habits and often starts unsuccessful criminal cases against other employees of the petitioner company. It is not also disputed that be was warned several times in the past for this sort of conduct. Over and above all that, he was involved in a criminal affair with a female worker in the petitioner's tea estate and was convicted and sentenced therefore by a criminal court.
(3.) ON 16 August 1958, the said Manindra Bhusan Roy became involved in a quarrel with a co -worker of his, named Harendra Kumar Guha, inside the petitioner's company's tea estate and in course of the quarrel, assaulted the said Harendra Kumar Guha causing bleeding injuries to his person. This was treated as a misconduct by the petitioner company, and the said Manindra Bhusan was charged with the following misconduct: (1) You have beaten Sri Harendra Kumar Guha (skilled labour) on 18 August 1957 within the jurisdiction of the tea estate till bleeding, taking law in your own hand. (2) Your activity is subversive of discipline of the estate causing damages to domestic peace of the law -abiding persons of the locality. The said Manindra Bhusan Roy was called upon to show cause to the charges. Mahindra replied to the charges in writing and in substance denied the same. Since the explanation submitted by Manindra, the delinquent, was found unsatisfactory, there was an enquiry held on the charges aforementioned, with full opportunity to the delinquent to defend himself. As a result of the enquiry, the delinquent was found guilty of all the charges and was ordered to be dismissed, with effect from 31 August 1958.;