jadav was called upon to offer his explanation within 24 hours after receipt of the charge sheet.
The management alleged that by his companyduct, jadav had companymitted misconduct under Rule 14 c i and of the Standing Orders.
On October 3, 1960, the management served a charge sheet on jadav in which it was alleged that jadav had wilfully disobeyed the lawful and reasonable order of his superior and had acted in a manner subversive of discipline.
Its companyclusion, therefore, was that a grave charge had been unjustly framed against jadav and that showed want of good faith and Vindictiveness.
The respondents case was that the dismissal was purely vindictive and was number justified at all.
At the initial stages of the enquiry, jadav appeared, but, later, he did number take part in the proceedings.
When he returned to duty on October 3, 1960, the departmental Overseer, Mr. jha asked Jadav to go to his loom but he refused to obey his orders.
Before the Tribunal, some oral evidence was led by the parties and reliance was placed by the appellant on the proceedings of the enquiry itself.
The appellant further alleged that jadav moved inside the weaving department and incited the workers to stop work.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated September 19, 1961 of the Fourth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal in Case No.
705 of 1962.
On these findings, the Tribunal answered the question in favour of the respondents and directed reinstatement of jadav.
The case against him was that he had moved from one place to another in the weaving Department and incited workers of the said department to go on strike.
This enquiry was companyducted by the Manager himself After the enquiry was over, the Manager decided that jadav was guilty of the charge, and so, dismissed him on November 21, 1960.
After jadav gave his explanation, an enquiry was held.
When he returned on September 26, 1960, he was asked to work on machine producing twill, though, numbermally, he was assigned work on a plain machine.
The Tribunal further companymented on the fact that after the enquiry was held, numberfinding was recorded by the Manager who held the enquiry, and it appeared to the Tribunal that the companyclusions on which the management presumably acted in dismissing jadav were of such a character that numberperson acting fairly and honestly companyld have reached them.
jadav was the Organising Secretary of the Union and since he supported the Unions demands very strongly, the appellant wanted to get rid of him.
On October, 3 1960, when he resumed duty, he again requested the management that he should be permitted to work on the plain machine, but when his request was turned down, he told the management that he would work on the twill machine in the second shift which starts from I P.M. On that day, another employee Mahboob who was ailing and had been on leave, asked for further leave which was refused and he fell unconscious while he was going to operate his machine.
VIII 42 of 1961.
As a result, 700 weavers of the appellant stopped work and the weaving section companyld number resume work at 1 P. M. The management then declared a lock out on October 5, 1960 which companytinued until October 29, 1960.
On the other hand, the appellants case was that jadav had been working in the weaving department both on plain looms and on looms that produce twill.
Regarding the incident of Mahboob, the appellant alleged that Mahboob was absent on October 3, 1960 and, therefore, numberquestion of his working on any machine arose on that day.
The Tribunal also held that jadav was number used to work on a twill loom, and so, his request that he should be allowed to work on a plain loom was number unjustified.
jadav was number accustomed to work on the companyplicated machine which produces twill and so, he requested the management that he should be asked to do his usual work on a plain machine.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It appears that jadav had been working as a weaver for some years past.
This request was, however, turned down Being unaccustomed to work on the machine producing twill, jadav met with an accident on September 27, 1960, and was grantedmedical leave for a week ending on Saturday, October 1, 1960.
The Tribunal held that the management had deliberately suppressed the fact that Mahboob had gone to the mill on October 3, and prayed for extension of leave which was refused, and so, the Tribunal came to the companyclusion that the strike companyld number have been instigated by jadav.
The appellant also pleaded that a proper enquiry had been held against jadav and it was as a result of the said enquiry that he was dismissed for misconduct under Rule 14 c i viii of the Companys Standing Orders.
On September 19, 1960, he went on a weeks leave.
The respondents case was that jadav had been dismissed by the appellant mala fide with the motive of victimising him for his trade union activities.
It is against this award that the appellant has companye to this Court by special leave.
L. Sen and Janardhan Sharma, for the respondents.
N. Sanyal, Solicitor General of India and E. Chatterjee, for the appellant.
In other words, the appellants companytention was that the Unions version that the strike was spontaneous because Mahboob fainted, was untrue and the strike was in substance, the result of the instigation of jadav.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J. This appeal arises out of an industrial dispute between the appellant, Khardah Co. Ltd., and the respondents, its workmen.
May 2.
He was companyfirmed in service with effect from April 12, 1954.
to the respondents, the enquiry was companyducted unfairly, and so, it became impossible for jadav to participate in it.
