D.N.Sinha, J. - (1.) The facts of this case are shortly as follows : There are three companies before me as petitioners -- The National Tobacco Company of India Ltd., the West Bengal Power Supply Co. Ltd., and the Agarpara Co. Ltd. The first petitioner carries on the business of manufacture and sale of cigarettes and tobacco products. The second petitioner carries on the business of supplying electricity. The third petitioner carries on the business of manufacture and sale of jute fabrics. They have a common Managing Agent, Messrs, B. N. Elias & Co. Private Ltd. At all material times, until they were dismissed, the respondents Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 were employed as clerks by the first petitioner. The respondents Nos. 10 and 11 were employed as clerks by the second petitioner, and respondents Nos. 12 and 13 were employed as clerks by the third petitioner. The office space at the Head Office situate at 1-2, Old Court House Corner in Calcutta is divided into two wings, one occupied by the first petitioner (known as the "N.T.C. side"), and the other wing is occupied by the other companies managed by the said B. N. Elias & Co. Private Ltd. as the Managing Agents, including the second and third petitioners. Prior to January, 1958 the employees of the first petitioner used to record their attendance by signing in an attendance register. In January, 1958 it was decided to instal an "Autograph", This is a machine containing a roll of paper and a sealed-in clock. As each clerk came in. he had to sign on the roll and to pull a lever. This automatically recorded the date and time against his signature, and it was not possible to alter the same without opening the machine. It appears that the clerks resisted the introduction of this machine and the position became such that conciliation proceedings had to be started. On the morning of 17-1-19581 there was an incident at the N.T.C. wing of the Head Office where the clerks were standing in a queue to record their respective signatures in the machine. As the queue increased and the tail of it reached the door, Mr. T. K. Biswas, the Chief Accountant of the company, who was in charge of the machine, directed one of his subordinate staff to close the door between the main hall where the recorder was situated and the waiting room. This led to an explosive situation and there was a certain disturbance. Ten of the leading participants in the disturbance, being respondents Nos. 4 to 13 in this application, were definitely identified and charge-sheeted. The exact wording of the charge-sheets which are in identical terms, is important and the relevant part thereof is set out below : "It has been reported by Mr. T. K. Biswas, Chief Accountant, National Tobacco Co. that you on 17-1-58 at about 9.45 A.M. along with many others joined an unruly assembly of clerks of this office and also of B. N. Elias and Co. Ltd., had entered the room of Mr. T. K. Biswas in a highly excited mood shouting slogan, abusing him thwarting him with an intention to assault him. The Management had good reason to believe that you all had combined to execute at common purpose to manhandle and humiliate him by threat and assault and that had not other officers ran to his rescue, Mr. Biswas would have to face a grave crisis. You had all in combination bad thus misbehaved with a view to coerce him to withdraw the Automatic Time Recorder and stifle any attempt on the part of the Management to enforce discipline for the smooth working conditions in the office. Annexed please also find the report of Mr. T. K. Biswas. Chief Accountant which will speak for itself. and it is being treated as part of the charges brought against you. You are charged with the above offence which is to be treated as gross breach of discipline which constitutes grave misconduct. You are hereby required to explain in writing the circumstances alleged against you within 24 hours of the receipt of this Charge Sheet. Pending further enquiry you are suspended forthwith."
(2.) In his report Mr. Biswas gave the following story of the incident that happened, consequent to the closing of the door as aforesaid : "No sooner the bearer stood near the door and closed it, the clerks who were waiting for an opportunity immediately became rowdy, and at about 9.45 A.M. about 15 clerks out of which I could recognise the following clerks of National Tobacco Co. and B. N. Elias Co. all in an excited mood entered my office, and in a very insulting manner began to abuse me. They used objectionable language and with a threat to my personal safety demanded immediate withdrawal of the "Automatic Time Recorder." Mr. T. P. Bhattacharjee and a large number of clerks who were standing just outside the room were challenging me to come out of the room using most filthy language, all the time, and shouting 'beat him first before we speak'. Their attitude and behaviour was so severely threatening that had not Mr. A. K, Chose the Accountant and Mr. S. K. Basu the A.T.M. along with some of the bearers rushed inside my office to protect me, I would have been severely manhandled. "This is a serious misconduct, and the clerks of the office were I believe all bent to take 'direct action' against the introduction of 'Automatic Time Recorder'. Their sole intention was to force me and coerce me to withdraw the reasonable order of introduction of Automatic Time Recorder, and also with a view to stifle any attempt on my part to enforce discipline for smooth working conditions in the office."
(3.) The enquiry was entrusted to Mr. A. S. Gubbay, a senior Executive of the Managing Agents. After explanations were submitted, a large number of witnesses were examined and cross-examined and the enquiry lasted for a number of days. As a result of the enquiry, Mr. Gubbay came to the conclusion that all the respondents Nos. 4 to 13 were guilty of the offences with which they were respectively charged. He recommended that each of them should be dismissed. Upon a consideration of his report, the Directors decided to dismiss all the said respondents. Thereafter, leave of the Conciliation Officer was obtained for such dismissal, and an order was made dismissing the respondents Nos. 4 to 13. Thereupon, an industrial dispute was raised which was referred to the adjudication of the 4th Industrial Tribunal, by an order of reference dated 21-3-1958 between the petitioners and their employees represented by B. N. Elias & Co. Ltd. Employees Union. The dispute that was raised was whether the dismissal of the respondents 4 to 13 was justified and to what relief they were entitled. The 4th Industrial Tribunal made its award on 5-2-1959 which was published on 14-2-1959. The award directed that all the said respondents were to be reinstated in service. It was further directed that 6 of the respondents were to get half-pay only for a period of three months and the rest would get half-pay for a period of two months only. The period of unemployment was to be treated as special leave without pay but without break in service. It is against this award that this application is directed. Before the Tribunal, it was urged on behalf of the company that the scope of enquiry in the reference was very limited. It was argued that it was limited to the decision whether or not the Management had acted in good faith, whether there was victimisation or unfair labour practice, or whether the Management was guilty of any basic error or violation of the principles of natural justice, and whether on the materials, the Management's finding on the charge of misconduct was completely baseless or perverse. It was claimed that if the Tribunal found the above in favour of the company, then in that case, it should not interfere with the decision of the Management The Tribunal held that in this case the Management was not taking action against the offending clerks under the provisions of any Standing Orders, or for the matter of that any Service Rules having the force of a contract, and therefore, the Tribunal had jurisdiction in an enquiry of this kind, to scrutinise all the circumstances of the case and to allow appropriate relief to the aggrieved party. It further held that even if the Management had conducted the enquiry into the charges fully and fairly, giving full opportunity to the clerks to meet charges, still the Tribunal could interfere with the decision of the Management where the punishment was found to be unjust and unduly excessive, being out of proportion to the misconduct committed. It finally observed as follows : "This Tribunal has jurisdiction to go into the merits of the matter in dispute and decide it. It is not precluded from allowing the appropriate reliefs including reinstatement, where necessary.";