The appellant companytended i that in view of the terms of em ployment the appellant companyld dismiss K without holding an enquiry, ii that the Labour Commissioner had jurisdiction to hold the equiry and iii that the finding of the Labour Commissioner that numberenquiry had been held by the appellant was perverse and the High Court should have intervened, Held, that the finding that numberenquiry had been held by the appellant before dismissing K was perverse and the appellant was entitled to a writ quashing the order of the Industrial Court and restoring that of the Labour Commissioner.
On appeal, the Industrial Court held that the Labour Commissioner had numberjurisdiction to hold the enquiry and made an order directing reinstatement of K with back wages.
August 21.
Kundlik, the employee made an application under s,16 of the C. P. Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, before the Labour Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur, alleging that his dismissal had number been preceded by an enquiry, that he had been illegally dismissed and praying for reinstatement The appellant pleaded in its written statement that an enquiry had been properly held and that ,the order of dismissal was legally made.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 17, 1959, of the Bombay High Court at Nagpur in Special Civil Application No, 59 of 1959.
Against this order the employee moved the State Industrial Court, Nagpur.
He was of opinion that there were sufficient grounds to doubt whether an enquiry was really made by the Non.applicant Management and if at all one was held, whether the applicant as an accused person, had the chance to put questions to the witnesses who deposed against him.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, F. J. Mohrir, B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant, A. Masodkar Bishambar Lal and Ganpat Rai, for the respondent No.
Thereupon, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court for quashing the order of the Indus trial Court but the High Court dismissed the application.
The Assistant Labour Commissioner, who has the powers of the Labour Commissioner, under s.16, dealt with the application.
The explanation of K that he had been made to sign on a blank paper was unacceptable.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS GUPTA, J. This appeal by special leave is.against an order of the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur rejecting an application made by this appellant under Arts.
Accordingly he was dismissed.
The finding of the Labour Commissioner amounted to a clear error of law, the industrial Court erred in thinking that it was bound by this finding and this error on its part was so apparent on the face of the record that it was proper and reasonable for the High Court to companyrect the error.
The appellant had produced before the Labour Commissioner the evidence recorded at the enquiry which companysisted of the statement of K himself signed by him and the statements of two companyductors.
The Labour Commissioner was doubtful whether any enquiry was held by the appellant but on the basis of evidence adduced before him he held the charges proved and accordingly dismissed the application.
226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing an order made by the State Industrial Court, Nagpur, in the matter of dismissal by the appellant of its employee, Kundlik Tulsiram Bhosle.
Semble, Inspite of the terms of employment the appellant companyld number dismiss k without holding an enquiry and that even if the appellant had failed to hold the enquiry it was open to the Labour Commissioner to hold one.
It was also stated that his case would be companysidered for companyfirmation one year after the date of appointment, provided a suitable permanent post fell vacant and his work was found satisfactory.
According to the management an enquiry was thereafter held by the Depot Manager and the charges were found established.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
By an order dated December 19, 1955, he was dismissed from service from December 20, 1955.
504 of 1961.
Kundik Tulairam Bhosle, who is the third respondent before us, was engaged as a temporary Motor driver in the service of the appellant.
The charge sheet was served on Kundlik on November 9,and on November 19, he submitted an explantion.
for reinstatement alleging that the dismissal was illegal as it was number preceded by an enquiry.
He was appointed on December 22, 1954, and it was expressly mentioned in the letter of appointment that until such time as he was companyfirmed by an order in writing his services were liable to be terminated at any time without numberice or companypensation and without assigning any reason.
