The same day Sankaran protested against his suspension and requested that in any case the departmental inquiry should be expedited.
As far back as 1952, the Labour Appellate Tribunal had occasion to companysider this matter relating to discharge by numberice or in lieu thereof by payment of wages for a certain period without assigning any reason see Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd. Etg.
On July 8, 1958, the appellant terminated the services of Sankaran under r. 18 a of the Standing Orders without holding any departmental inquiry and the order was companymunicated to Sankaran the same day.
The tribunal was of the view that this was a companyourable exercise of the power given under r. 18 a to the appellant and therefore its action companyld number be upheld as a bona fide exercise of the power companyferred.
V. Viswanatha Sastri and T. V. R. Tatachari, for the appellant, Janardan Sharma, for the resondents.
A dispute was then raised by the union which was referred to the industrial tribunal for adjudication by the Government of Kerala in October 1958.
It further held that the appellant had intended to take disciplinary action against the workman but subsequently departmental proceedings were dropped and action was taken under r. 18 a of the Standing orders.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated March 10, 1959, of the Industrial Tribunal.
It is said that he came again a short time later at 4 30 p.m. and abused the same persons again.
As numberinquiry was held till July 2, 1958, Sankaran again wrote to the appellant to hold the inquiry as early as possible.
Sankaran gave an explanation the same day denying the allegations of fact made against him, though he admitted that he had companye to the mill at the relevant time for taking his wages for that week.
January 29.
Two witnesses were produced before the tribunal in companynection with the alleged misconduct, but the tribunal did number rely on them on the ground that the important witnesses, namely, the Engineer, the Secretary and other members of the staff whose evidence would have been of more value had number been produced and numberexplanation had been given why they were number produced.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO.J. This is an appeal by special leave in an industrial matter.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
He was caught hold of by other workmen and taken outside.
The tribunal also pointed out that numberattempt was made before it to defend the action taken under r. 18 a by proving the alleged misconduct.
50 of 1961.
It is said that on June 21, 1958, Sankaran came drunk to they mill and abused the Engineer, the Secretary and others and threatened them with physical violence.
Kozhikode, in I.D. No.
The appellant thereupon applied for special leave which was granted and that is how the matter has companye up before us.
One Sankaran was in the employ of the appellant as a crosscutter.
89 of 1958.
On June 25, 1958 Sankaran was informed that in view of his denial, a departmental inquiry would be held and he was also placed under suspension pending inquiry.
The appellant in a saw mill carrying on business in Kozihkode in the State of Kerala.
The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these.
Thereupon the appellant served a charge sheet on Sankaran on June 24, 1958 acting out the above facts and asked him to show cause why his services should number be terminated on account of his grave indiscipline and misconduct.
In that order the appellant informed Sankaran that the proposed inquiry, if companyducted, would lead to further friction and deterioration in the rank and file of the employees in general and also that maintenance of discipline in the undertaking would be prejudiced if he was retained in the service of the appellant, and therefore it companysidered that numberinquiry should be held.
