B.N.BANERJEE, J. - (1.) RESPONDENT 3, Doodhnath Pandey, used to serve as a durwan under the petitioner -company. On 3 May 1960, the petitioner -company charged respondent 3 with misconduct in the following language: On 27 April 1960 at 9 -45 a.m. when you went to give your attendance to Sri Motilal Misra, you shouted at the top of your voice and wanted Sri Miara to take your attendance disregarding other members of the sub -staff, who were there to give attendance. On Sri Misra asking you to wait a little, you. became very rude and insolent, shouted at the top of your voice and used filthy language against Sri Misra. Your behaviour and motion in creating a scene is tantamount to activities subversive of discipline. You are therefore required to show cause within three days from date hereof why disciplinary action should not be taken against you.
(2.) ON 9 May 1960, respondent 3 showed cause denying the charge. In the meantime, respondent 3 is said to have committed further misconduct on 5 May 1960. A second chargesheet, dated 24 May 1960, was, therefore, served upon respondent 3, couched in the following language: Further to the letter of charge dated 3 May 1960 it is again reported that on 5 May 1960 when you along with others went to the currency office to bring change for distribution of wages in the mills, you became insolent on other darwans and behaved very rudely and uttered that nobody should try to help (?) the cashier to get the changes required for the mills. You also showed your temper on others when they insisted to have the change from cashier and you would have quarrelled with other durwans and used filthy language and uttered that you would see them. Your behaviour and action is in complete disregard to discipline and is subversive in nature. You are therefore required to submit your explanation within two days from date hereof.
(3.) IN his explanation, dated 28 May 1960, respondent 3 again denied the charge. There was a domestic enquiry held on the two charges and witnesses were examined. The enquiring officer found respondent 3 guilty of both the charges and recommended that he be discharged from service. Pursuant to the recommendation, respondent 3 was ordered to be discharged from the service of the petitioner -company, with effect from 10 October 1660. Since there was an industrial dispute pending between the petitioner -company and its workmen at that time, before an industrial tribunal, the petitioner -company made an application for approval of the order of discharge under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Respondent 3 also filed a complaint under Section 33A ofthe Act. The industrial tribunal passed an order, dated 17 April 1961, directing that the applications shall be heard on merits. As against the aforesaid order, the petitioner -company moved this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, and obtained a rule, being Matter No. 144 of 1961. That rule was made absolute by this Court, on 20 September 1962, the order, dated 17 April 1961, was set aside and the matter was remanded to the respondent Industrial tribunal for disposal according to law.;