This is the order which has given rise to the present appeal by special leave.
Not satisfied with the order of dismissal, the respondent raised an industrial dispute in regard to the propriety and validity of the said dismissal of Raghavan and that has become the subject matter of the present reference which was ordered on the 3rd of December, 1958.
One of these factories is located at Tatapuram, Ernakulam, in the State of Kerala.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated September 28, 1960 of the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, in Industrial Dispute No.
Mr. Raghavan was working with the appellant at its factory at Tatapuram.
B. Pai, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant.
Govinda Menon, M. S. K. Iyengar and M. R. K. Pillai, for respondent No.
That is why charge sheets were issued against both Messrs Raghavan and Mathews on the 14th November, 1955.
It owns three factories in addition to 12 sales offices.
It was reported to the appellant that on the 12th November, 1955, Mr. Raghavan and another employee of the appellant, Mr. Mathews by name, waylaid Mr. C. A. Augustine, the Chargeman of the Soap Plant of the companypanys factory at Tatapuram while he was returning home after his duty in the second shift and assaulted him.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
81 of 1958.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, C. J. This appeal by special leave raises a short question about the validity of the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, directing the appellant, the Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd., to reinstate its workman K. K. Raghavan whom it had dismissed with effect from the 14th of November, 1955.
March 31, 1964.
Acting in pursuance of the approval accorded by the Tribunal, the appellant dismissed Raghavan with effect from the 14th November, 1955.
51.7 of 1963.
The appellant is a public limited companycern engaged in the industry of soaps and toilet articles.
Pursuant to the service of the charge sheets, two officers were appointed by the appellant to hold an enquiry, but the respondent Union represented to the appellant that justice would number be done to Raghavan and Mathews unless somebody outside Tatapuram was invited to hold the enquiry.
Thereupon, the General Manager of the appellant appointed Mr. Y. D. Joshi, who is a Law Officer of the appellant in the Head Office, to hold the enquiry.
At that time, an industrial dispute was pending between the appellant and its employees, and so, the appellant applied to the Industrial Tribunal for approval of the dismissal of Messrs Raghavan and Mathews.
It is on this reference that the Industrial tribunal has held that the appellant was number justified in dismissing Raghavan, and so, has ordered his reinstatement.
