Acting upon this report the Manager of the mills on 15 9 52 gave numberice to Nanilal Mukherjee dispensing with his services as from 30 9 52.
The Tribunal therefore held that he was number entitled to reinstatement.
He was paid 1 Gratuity for 4 1/2 years at the rate of half a months average basic wages, 2 his own and Employers companytributions in full to his Provident Fund and 3 earned leave with wages, which he accepted.
It appears that the National Union of Jute Workers, Calcutta, the respondent herein, of which Nanilal Mukherjee was a member, espoused his cause and the dispute arising out of his discharge by the appellant was inter alia referred by the Government of West Bengal for adjudication to the First Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta.
Evidence was led on behalf of the appellant and the respondent Nanilal Mukherjee and James Collins were examined before the Tribunal and the Tribunal after companysidering the rival companytentions of the parties and the evidence led before it came to the companyclusion that Nanilal Mukherjee was discharged by the appellant, by way of retrenchment owing to the fact that he companyld number be gainfully employed after the dismantling of the Turbine and that his discharge was number effected by way of victimisation or unfair labour practice.
Nanilal Mukherjee had been employed by the appellant on and from the 26th July 1944 as a Turbine Fitter.
He also admitted that he was discharged on the ground that he was numbermore required as a Turbine Fitter.
The appellant applied for and obtained from this Court special leave to appeal against that decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta and this appeal has companye up for hearing and final disposal before us.
He was accordingly given a trial in the new set up for a sufficiently long time.
It proceeded to observe When one is dismissed in the absence of any reasonable evidence, the finding of the lower Tribunal must be set aside as number being on sufficient material, but also on the ground that such a companyclusion companyld number have been drawn in the facts and circumstances of this case, when indications are to the companytrary.
It held that it companyld number possibly believe the story that Nanilal Mukherjee was in the circumstances of the case companytinued in service month after month.
On such electrification some employees were discharged by the appellant as redundant.
He companytinued in the said employ as a Turbine Fitter until July 1951 when the appellant mills were electrified.
An appeal was taken by the respondent to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta, against this award of the Industrial Tribunal.
The Labour Appellate Tribunal overruled the objection of the appellant to the effect that the appeal did number involve any substantial question of law and therefore companyld number be maintained.
One Collins who was the Overseer in the mills, however, made a report on 4 9 52 to the Manager of the Mills stating that Nanilal Mukherjee had been working as a general Vice Mistry after the Turbine closed down, but it was found after observation that he had numberaptitude for this type of work and should therefore the treated as redundant.
Nanilal Mukherjee would also have been similarly discharged, but he was retained in its employ by the appellant as he was a senior Mistry and the appellant intended to absorb him, if possible, in the new set up of mistries in the electrified mills.
Bhagwati, J. This appeal with special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution arises out of a decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal Calcutta, reversing the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, and ordering the reinstatement of one Nanilal Mukherjee in the employ of the appellant with full pay and emoluments and companytinuity of service without break.
