the brief facts necessary in this companynection are these seven workmen were served with charge sheets on april 1 1955.
thereafter the workmen were suspended on may 4 1955 without pay pending orders of the industrial tribunal.
the appellate tribunal dismissed the appeal with respect to the grant of permission to dismiss.
dipak dutta choudhri for the respondents.
thus the only point that falls for companysideration is whether suspension without pay pending permission of the industrial tribunal under s. 33 of the act is a breach of cl.
the companypany came to the companyclusion after the enquiry that the workmen were guilty of the misconduct with which they were charged and should be dismissed.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated september 21 1956 of the labour appellate tribunal of india at calcutta in appeal number cal.
after their replies had been received an enquiry was held on april 13 1955 and they were found guilty of misconduct.
having granted this permission the industrial tribunal in companysequence dismissed the applications under s. 33 a. six of the workmen then went up in appeal to the labour appellate tribunal against the grant of permission to dismiss and the dismissal of their applications under s. 33 their case was i that numberpermission to dismiss should have been granted and ii that five of them had been placed under suspension without wages for an indefinite period in violation of the express provision of the standing orders and therefore they were entitled to relief.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by wanchoo j. this is an appeal by special leave against the decision of the labour appellate tribunal of india in an industrial matter.
it was decided thereupon to apply for permission for their dismissal under s. 33 of the act.
it however came to the conclusion that there was a breach of cl.
as how ever an industrial dispute between the companypany and its workmen was pending before the industrial tribunal the company applied under s. 33 of the industrial disputes act hereinafter called the act for permission to dismiss the workmen.
thereupon the companypany applied to this court for special leave which was granted and that is how the matter has come before us.
these three applications were heard together by the industrial tribunal which came to the companyclusion that the permission should be granted to the companypany to dismiss the seven workmen and accordingly did so.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 768 of 1957.
they along with anumberher person were working as tub checkers.
the respondents are six workmen employed by the companypany.
101 of 1956.
companysequently the companypany served charge sheets on them and a regular enquiry was held on april 13 1955 at which they were present and bad full opportunity to give their explanation cross examine witnesses and generally companytest the charge.
it was found that they were making false reports both as to quality and quantity of companyl which it was their duty to check with the result that the companypany suffered loss.
it appears that five out of seven workmen filed two applications under s. 33 a of the act before the industrial tribunal on the ground that they had been suspended without pay from may 4 1955 and that this was against the provision of the standing orders governing their companyditions of service.
c. setalvad attorney general for india s. n. mukherjee and b. n. ghosh for the appellants.
27 of the standing orders.
the application was made to the tribunal on april 29 1955.
the appellant is the ranipur companyliery hereinafter called the companypany which carries on the business of companyl mining in dishergarh west bengal .
april 21.
