B.N.BANERJEE, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, the Statesman (Private) Ltd. (hereinafter called the company) carries on business as printers and publishers of the well -known daily newspaper, the Statesman.
(2.) THE petitioner -company dismissed Sk. Kallu, one of its workmen, for misconduct. The dispute concerning his dismissal was taken up by the workmen of the company, represented by Statesman employees' union, respondent 2, and was converted into an industrial dispute. That dispute was referred to the second labour court, by the State Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The labour court awarded reinstatement of Sk. Kallu in service, with half of his wages for the period of unemployment.
(3.) THE propriety of the award is being disputed in this rule at the instance of the company. It as necessary for me to recount the circumstances which led to the dismissal of Sk. Kallu. For sometime prior to December 1966, the workmen of the company's press adopted a go -slow policy, during which, between the dates 20 December and 22 December 1963, Sk. Kallu is said to have committed certain acts of misconduct for which he was served with a charge -sheet, dated 24 December 1956, to the following effect: That on the evening of Thursday, 20 December 1956 at 7 -30 p.m., while you were on 5 p.m. to 12 midnight shift, you left your department without permission, thereby leaving your work unattended. You went downstairs and entered the job printing department, where you had no business, and approached Mr. H.D. Rozario, a senior supervisor on duty at the time. You warned him that he should not send any workmen from the job printing department to the composing department and that if any workman or workmen came up to the composing department to help with the work, they would be in serious trouble. That on the evening of Friday, 21 December 1956, while you were on 5 p.m. to 12 midnight shift, you were noted to be deliberately slowing down in your work. Your attention was drawn to this by Mr. Marsh. At 10 -15 p.m., Mr. Marsh gave you specific instructions to get on with the 10 -inoh by 5 -inch column techno export advertisement. Although it should have taken you at the most half an hour to fit up this advertisement, you did not, la fact, complete the work until11 -45 p.m., a total of one and a half hours. That on the morning of Friday, 21 December 1956, you were seen in the composing department when not officially on duty and as such had no business to be there, You were further Been talking to Chandi Charan Nath. It is reported that you intimidated Chandi Charan Nath and gave him instructions that he was not to carry out work on the Sunday classified advertisements as he had been instructed by his supervisor. When Cnandi Charan Nath was asked by Mr. Moore and the supervisor why the supervisor's instructions had not been carried out, he complained that you had given contrary instructions and had threatened him that if he did not carry out your instructions, he would be in trouble. When Chandi Charan Nath was brought to my office by Mr. Moore and the supervisor, he confirmed in front of me that you had thus threatened him. That on the evening of Saturday, 22 December 1956, you were instructed at 6 p.m. by the supervisor to fit up two small shipping advertisements, 4 -inch by 2 -inch columns each. At 7 -05 p.m. the supervisor complained to Mr. Pluck that you had disregarded his instructions and had not done any of this work or any other work. Mr. Pluck immediately came up to you and in front of the supervisor again instructed you to get on with this work. Mr. Pluck then left the composing department and returned at approximately 9 -10 p.m. Mr. Pluck then came up to you and found that you had still not started on the job which he had given you to do, and in front of Mr. Moore he again gave you instructions to get on with this work. Ha asked you why you had done no work for four hours and again instructed you to get on with the job he had given you. In fact, Mr. Pluck stood over you and watched you carry out this work, which you completed in ten minutes. You were (sic), therefore, four hours twenty minutes, completing a job which you yourself proved could be done in ten minutes.;