- (1.) THE petitioner in this case is Gayadin Ram, carrying on business under the name and style of Hindusthan Iron and Steel Co. In a reference made by Government to the Fourth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal the petitioner has been described as a 'company' and an industrial dispute between Messrs. Hindusthan Iron and Steel Co. referred to as the 'company' and their workmen represented by Hindusthan Iron and Steel Co. Workers' Union was referred to the Fourth Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of three disputes. The issues were as follows:- (1) Whether the dismissal of Shri Subodh Guha was justified ? What relief is he entitled to ? (2) Bonus for 1956. (3) Whether refusal of employment to the workers named in the list attached to the order of reference was justified ? What relief were they entitled to ?
(2.) THE Fourth Industrial Tribunal made its award on the 12th of March, 1958. With regard to issue No. 1it was held that the dismissal of Shri Subodh Guha was not justified and there was an order reinstating him in service. The case for the petitioner is that Guha was provocation and inciting the workers in the factory and trying to create disruption between the management and labour and he was also guilty of attempted sabotage of machinery by putting several pieces of copper in the fittings of the machinery. Thereupon he was suspended with effect from the 13th June, 1957 and called upon to show cause why his services should not be dispensed with on charges of indiscipline and attempt to create dissatisfaction amongst the workers and to interfere with the production of the factory. It is said that a criminal prosecution was commenced against Guha under Sec. 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in the Court of the Sub-divisional Officer, Barrackpore, and it is claimed that because of this criminal proceedings the departmental enquiry was shelved. It is alleged that Guha was never dismissed from service and since the criminal proceedings are still pending, be continues to be under suspension.
(3.) AS against that, Guha's case is that ho was in fact discharged and that there never has been any criminal prosecution against him. It appears that there is a criminal prosecution against one Subodh Gupta and not Subodh Guha. This point was gone into by the Tribunal and the Tribunal held that the evidence given before the Tribunal by Guha to the effect that he was discharged, stood uncontradicted. The Tribunal however held that suspension for an indefinite period, in the facts and circumstances of this case, amounted to termination of service. Mr. Chaudhuri appearing on behalf of the petitioner has said that a general proposition of this kind was untenable. If it had no reference to the facts of this case, then I would have been inclined to agree with him. But, if suspension is for an indefinite period and is merely dismissal in the guise of suspension, then it can be called its real name and held to be dismissal. In certain circumstances however, suspension for an indefinite period may be justified and will not necessarily amount to dismissal. However, the learned Tribunal came to that conclusion only in reference to the facts of this particular case. There was definite evidence before him that Guha was discharged and that evidence was uncontradicted. He has come to the conclusion that Guha had been dismissed and he should be reinstated. Since it is a finding on a question of fact and this is not a Court of Appeal on facts, the decision on issue No, 1 cannot be disturbed, and so far as that issue is concerned, the application must fail.;