A.K. Mukherjea, J. - (1.) This appeal arises in connection with an application made by the Associated Electrical Industries Manufacturing Company Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the company) under Sec. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There are two registered trade unions of the company's workmen; one was the worker's union and the other was the staff union. In August 1960, there was a dispute between the company and its workmen as to bonus. There was a tripartite settlement of this dispute by which the dispute between the workmen represented by the workers' union and the company was settled. The staff union, however, pressed their demand after this settlement and Government referred the consequent industrial dispute to the Fifth Industrial Tribunal. We are not concerned here with the merits of this dispute or of the reference which are the subject -matter of another application before this Court. It appears that during the pendency of the proceedings arising out of the aforesaid reference, there were certain controversies regarding the method of a particular operation in the Fabrication and Welding Department and the Conciliation Officer of the State of West Bengal visited the company's factory to make a study of the operation personally. It is stated by the Petitioner company that on October 16,1960, Sri S.B. Paul, the Assistant Industrial Engineer of the company, demonstrated this particular operation to the Conciliation Officer who visited the company's factory. On the same day, i.e. on October 16, 1963, after the working hours the Respondent Radha -shyam caught hold of Sri Paul and challenged him for having demonstrated the method of operation to the Conciliation Officer. Further, at the instigation of the Respondent No. 2 Bhupendra Nath Bagchi, Respondent No. 3 Raghunandan Chawdhury and Respondent No. 4 Radhashyam Das assaulted Sri Paul. On October 17, 1963, Sri Paul made a complaint as a result of which charge -sheets were served upon the Respondents Nos. 2, 3, and 4 for major misdemeanor, namely,. riotous or disorderly behavior and acts subversive to discipline. These charges, the Petitioner says, were framed under Clause 14(g) of the company's standing orders. There was after this a domestic enquiry in course of which these allegations and charges were investigated by the Personnel Officer of the company. The Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 were found guilty at this enquiry. Thereafter, on December 27, 1963, the Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 were dismissed. One month's wages were remitted to each of these Respondents by money orders which were, however, all returned with the endorsement 'refused'. On December 27,1963, the company made an application before the Fifth Industrial Tribunal under Sec. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act for approval of the action taken by the company against these Respondents. The case was subsequently transferred from the Fifth Industrial Tribunal to the Second Labour Court for disposal. The Second Labour Court after hearing the parties has by a judgment dated March 19, 1965, rejected the company's application. The company has now challenged the finding of the Second Labour Court in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) The learned Second Labour Court has found that the act of dismissal of the three workers cannot be justified. In coming to this finding the Second Labour Court relies on the following criticisms of the enquiry of the Personnel Officer: (i) That Bhupendra Nath Bagchi, Raghunandan Chawdhury and Radhashyam Das have no interest in the dispute which was pending for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, they could not be termed as 'concerned workmen' within the meaning of Sec. 33(2)(b) of the said Act. (ii) That the evidence on which the Personnel Officer has come to his findings is not adequate. There are inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of the various witnesses examined by the Personnel Officer regarding the complicity of the delinquent employees, (iii) The Enquiry Officer had himself accompanied Sri Paul to the Thana after the occurrence and he was, therefore, prejudiced against the workers from the very beginning. I propose to examine these three grounds one by one.
(3.) So far as the first ground is concerned, the very first thing that strikes me is that if the learned Labour Court has been correct in its observation that Sec. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act is not attracted at all, the logical consequence would be that the Second Labour Court will have no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the finding of the Personnel Officer. Having come to the finding that this is not a case where Sec. 33(2)(b) is attracted, the Second Labour Court should have at once refused to go into the matter further and should have declined to give any opinion. At most, the Second Labour Court should have held that it was not necessary for the company to have the approval of the Second Labour Court for - sustaining the order of dismissal.;