The Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, apparently went into the merits of the case and, felt that dismissal was number an appropriate punishment in the circumstances but would be excessive particularly in view of certain alleged extenuating circumstances, as for example, his service record, his admission of guilt and plea for leniency and the assurance given by the Union companycerned that such lapse would number recur.
The Industrial Tribunal attempted to impose companyditions on the appellants by putting it to them that, if they amended their application to ask for something less than dismissal, permission would be readily granted but that otherwise the application would be entirely rejected.
of the said aircraft.
The Labour Appellate Tribunal was of opinion that there was a substantial question of law involved and that there had been a perverse exercise of jurisdiction by the Industrial Tribunal.
The Industrial Tribunal in the result rejected the application of the appellants.
of an aircraft being re fuelled.
of the said aircraft by the District Manager of the appellants and as a result of the first respondent smoking in the manner stated above the Airport authorities decided number to permit him to operate on the Aerodrome.
As adjudication proceedings in respect of Reference IT No.
The first respondent then preferred an appeal in the High Court of Bombay, being Appeal No.
The first respondent was caught red handed in the very act of smoking within 25 ft.
An enquiry into the matter was held on the 4th December, 1952, by the Sales Manager of the appellants.
The said petition came on for hearing before the said learned Judge who delivered a companysidered judgment on the 14th July, 1953, dismissing the said petition and discharging the said rule nisi.
The first respondent thereupon presented a petition to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, being Miscellaneous No.
The first respondent was afforded a full opportunity to be represented at the enquiry and to defend and to cross examine the witnesses.
The appellants who were acting bona fide in the interests of public security and safety as well as in the interests of the whole petroleum industry and the safety of life and property for which it was necessary to maintain discipline rigidly did number agree to a punishment less than dismissal in view of such gross and wilful misconduct as had been proved.
The Labour Appellate Tribunal by its decision dated the 1st April, 1953, set aside the said order of the Industrial Tribunal and granted such permission to the appellants.
167 of 1953, for issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or directions under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground, inter alia, that the said decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal was without jurisdiction inasmuch as the said appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal did number involve any substantial question of law.
The appellants preferred an appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal for having the said order of the Industrial Tribunal set aside and for grant to the appellants of permission to dismiss the first respondent from their employ.
The District Manager who was himself an eye witness gave evidence.
78 of 1952 were pending before the Industrial Tribunal at Bombay, the appellants made an application under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, asking for the permission of the Tribunal to dismiss the first respondent from their employ.
The said appeal was heard by the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay companysisting of Chagla, C. J. and Shah, J., and the learned Judges allowed the said appeal and issued a writ against the 2nd respondent, the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Bombay, holding that the Labour Appellate Tribunal had numberjurisdiction to entertain the appeal as it did number involve any substantial question of law.
The first respondent number only pleaded guilty but was also found guilty of misconduct on the evidence and as a result of the enquiry the appellants desired to punish him by dismissing him from their employ, dismissal being a numbermal punishment for such an act of misconduct.
A charge sheet was furnished to the first respondent and he was called upon to answer the charge of serious misconduct.
The first respondent was engaged in the service of the appellants as a Driver at their Santa Cruz Airport Service Station.
On the morning of the 28th November, 1952, while on duty at the Santa Cruz Aerodrome in an area where smoking is prohibited and at a time when an aircraft was being re fuelled by the appellants the first respondent was found smoking within about 25 ft.
At the time when the re fuelling was in progress a No Smoking sign was placed on the re fueller with a view to prevent anyone in the vicinity from smoking and definite instructions had been given to this effect to all the staff companycerned including the first respondent.
Bhagwati, J. The facts leading up to this Special Leave Appeal lie within a very narrow companypass.
Smoking while on duty is prohibited by the appellants the area in which the first respondent was found smoking is an area where smoking is prohibited and under the Aircraft Ground Fire Precaution Rules, smoking is prohibited within 100 ft.
