M.M. Dutt, J. - (1.) This Rule is directed against an order of the First Labour Court, West Bengal, dismissing the application of the Petitioner company under Sec. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
(2.) The Respondent No. 3 was a workman of the company. The company served a charged -sheet upon the Respondent No. 3 containing certain charges. The Respondent No. 3 submitted his explanation to the said charges. There was an enquiry held by the appointment of an enquiring officer by the company. The enquiring officer came to the finding that the Respondent No. 3 was guilty of charges levelled against him. Thereupon, the Manager of the company served an order dated August 4, 1970, upon the Respondent No. 3. By the said order dated August 4, 1970, the Respondent No. 3 was dismissed from service of the company with immediate effect. It had been further stated in the said order that in accordance with Sec. 33(2)(b) of the Act one month's wages had been remitted by postal money order. It was also stated that an application was being filed before the First Labour Court for approval of the action taken against him. The company made an application before the First Labour Court for approval of the order of dismissal from service of the Respondent No. 3. The said application was opposed by the Respondent No. 3. It was inter alia alleged in the petition of objection of the Respondent No. 3 that the formalities as laid down in the Act had not been followed, that the enquiry was neither fair nor proper, that the charges, as stated in the charge -sheet, were false and baseless and that the Respondent No. 3 was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself in the said enquiry. Further, it was alleged that, as the Respondent No. 3 was an active member of the Bengal Chatkal Mazdoor Union, Jagatdal Branch, he incurred displeasure of the company for his trade union activities.
(3.) The Labour Court, after considering the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, held that the domestic enquiry made by the company was properly done and that the finding arrived at by the enquiring officer holding the Respondent No. 3 guilty of charges framed against him, was also legal and valid. In spite of the said findings, the Labour Court took the view that the order of dismissal was not passed after considering the past record of service of the Respondent No. 3 as required to be done under Clause 14(g) of the standing order of the company. In that view of the matter, the Labour Court refused to grant approval to the order of dismissal of the Respondent No. 3.;