This companyplaint was dismissed by the learned magistrate on April 21, 1953.
He was marked on leave on 1 9 1951 and treated as absent for one month thereafter.
It was in respect of this draft that false entries were made by the respondent in the appellants books of account kept by the respondent.
The Sessions Judge who was moved in revision by the appellant companymented on this point and held that there was numberforce in its revisional application.
Since the Conciliation Officer was unable to settle the dispute, he made a report and thereafter the present dispute was referred for industrial adjudication.
He alleged that the appellant had wrongfully terminated his services whereas according to the appellant the services had been terminated for misconduct as shown by the falsification of accounts made by him.
1,200 as damages for his malicious prosecution by the appellant.
1,422 which was issued in favour of the appellant.
1,422 was due from the said firm.
Thereupon the appellant filed a criminal companyplaint against the respondent and two others under Sections 408, 477A and 465 of the Indian Penal Code.
It was urged before the tribunal that the respondent had made its companyplaint before the Conciliation Officer after a long lapse of time but this companytention was rejected by the tribunal.
It found that the criminal revision filed by the appellant was dismissed on February 17, 1954, and the respondent had approached the Conciliation Officer within a companyple of months thereafter.
The appellant moved the learned Sessions Judge at Aligarh in revision but the said revisional application was also dismissed on February 17, 1954.
According to the appellant it had dealings with Shankar Das Durga Prasad of Meerut and an amount of Rs.
A draft for the said amount was received from the said firm in favour of the appellant.
The tribunal as well as the appellate tribunal have held that the appellant was number justified in dismissing the respondent and so an order has been passed directing the appellant to reinstate respondent in his old job with companytinuity of service and to pay him the subsistence allowance and pay as specified in the award.
Thus there was numberdelay on the part of the respondent.
On April 22, 1954 the respondent moved the Regional Conciliation Officer for settlement of his dispute with the appellant.
It had obtained several adjournments for the purpose of leading evidence but numberevidence was in fact led and the companyplaint was dismissed for default.
It appears that the respondent was employed as a Munim accounts clerk by the appellant from October 25, 1948 to August 31, 1951.
It is this order which is challenged before us in the present appeal.
On September 1, 1951, the respondent took one days leave but did number return to his job in spite of repeated calls.
The relevant entries had been overwritten with the object of companyveniently misappropriating the said amount.
No charge sheet was given to him number was any opportunity afforded to him to explain the charge.
323 of 1955 filed by the respondent to recover Rs.
In the opinion of the tribunal this companyduct of the appellant clearly proved that the appellant was number willing to substantiate its charge in the criminal companyrt.
Meanwhile the appellant came to know that the respondent had made certain false entries in its books of account with a view to misappropriate a Bank Draft of Rs.
P. Gajendragadkar, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of an industrial dispute between M s. Tika ram and Sons Ltd. Oil Mills, Aligarh hereafter called the appellant and its workman Bishamber Dayal hereafter called the respondent .
The appellant had purported to terminate the services of the respondent, and at the instance of the respondent the dispute in regard to the said termination of his services was referred for adjudication.
