the companypany however companypleted the enquiry and directed the dismissal of the respondent on the ground that the misconduct had been proved against him.
march 10.
the respondent appeared before the enquiry companymittee but stated that as the case was pending against him he did number want to produce any defence till the matter was decided by the companyrt.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated may 6 1958 of the industrial tribunal delhi in 0.
when questions were put to him at the enquiry he refused to answer them and eventually he left the place.
in the meantime the respondent had been acquitted by the criminal companyrt on april 8 1958 on the ground that the case against him was number free from doubt.
p. number 54 of 1958.
the matter came before the tribunal on may 6 1958.
this matter was apparently brought to the numberice of the company in october 1957 and thereupon a charge sheet was served on the respondent to the effect that he had stolen the cycle of ram chandra head clerk that it had been recovered at his instance and that a criminal case was pending against him with the police.
the respondent kushal bhan was in the employ of the companypany as a peon.
c. setalvad attorney general for india s. n. andley b. dadachanji rameshwar nath and l. vohra for the appellant.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 88 of 1959.
he was asked to show cause why he should number be dismissed for misconduct.
it appears that the cycle of ram chandra head clerk of the folding department was stolen on august 24 1957.
thereafter an application was made under s. 33 2 of the industrial disputes act number 14 of 1947 by the companypany to the tribunal for approval of the action taken against the respondent.
the respondent submitted his explanation on october 13 1957.
sometime later the cycle was recovered from the railway station cycle stand at the instance of the respondent who took the police there and picked out the stolen cycle from among 50/60 cycles standing there.
the matter was reported to the police.
as his explanation was unsatisfactory numberember 14 1957 was fixed for enquiry.
the appellant is a companypany carrying on the manufacture of textiles.
the companyy of the judgment of the criminal court was produced before the tribunal and it refused to approve the order of dismissal.
janardan sharma for the respondent.
the companypany thereupon applied for special leave to this companyrt resulting in the present appeal.
he further stated that he did number want to take part in the enquiry and was number prepared to give any answers to questions put to him.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by wanchoo j. this is an appeal by special leave in an industrial matter.
