In the meantime on 3rd October 1970 first respondent companypany declared a lock out.
The present appeal by special leave is filed by the aggrieved work man.
The management has got a right to attempt to sustain its order by adducing independent evidence before the Tribunal.
1168 of 1978 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 22 4 1976 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal No.
This case came to be registered as Case No.
In the meantime the appellant was detained under the Prevention of Violence Act, 1970, with the result that when he received the intimation of the date on which the enquiry was to be held, he informed the companypany that as he is in detention he would number be able to attend the enquiry and sought an adjournment.
on a numberice issued by the Industrial Tribunal appellant was produced before the Tribunal from the Jail custody and he submitted his written statement.
Appellant pined service with the first respondent companypany companypany for short in August 1963 and was companyfirmed in March 1964.
Consequently on 16th September 1971 the enquiry proceeded ex parte.
Facts number beyond the pale of companytroversy are few and may be briefly stated.
80/74.
The companypany preferred a Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to the High Court of Calcutta.
On the same day appellant was arrested by police and some criminal case was lodged against him in which he was discharged by the Magistrate on 2nd December 1970.
The Tribunal then proceeded to adjudicate upon the dispute.
128/71 under s. 33 2 b of the Act before the III Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal.
Accordingly, by its Award dated 15th September 1973, the Tribunal rejected the application for approval of the action terminating the service of the appellant made by the companypany and declined to grant approval.
The companypany preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.
Enquiry officer held the charges 1171 proved and on the report of the enquiry officer the management of the first respondent companypany terminated the service of the appellant and gave one months wages in lieu of numberice.
Adjournment appears to have been granted but a fresh numberice was served upon the appellant in the Jail intimating to him to appear before the enquiry officer on 15th September 1971 but as the appellant 16 still in detention, he companyld number avail of this opportunity.
But the management should vail itself of the said opportunity by making a suitable request to the Tribunal before the proceedings are closed.
An industrial dispute touching the workman d the companypany was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, given the even leading to the present appeal occurred.
Das Gupta and Mrs. L. Arvind for the Appellant.
In October 1970 appellant was drawing a companyposite salary of Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
He is alleged to have threatened the shift Manager Shri Manik Mukherjee who was on duty at the relevant time.
Somehow or the other the Management did number proceed with the enquiry till as late as 30th June 1971 when the appellant was informed that the enquiry would be held on July 8, 1971.
The Tribunal was of the opinion that the enquiry was companyducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and hence vitiated.
The incident reported to police.
On 1st October 1970 around 5 p.m. appellant is alleged to have hoisted two red flags atop the Branch office building simultaneously shouting inflammatory slogans.
80/74.
Since an industrial dispute between the workmen of the companypany and the companypany was then pending before the Industrial Tribunal, an application was made under section 33 2 b of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Act for short seeking approval of the Industrial Tribunal to the action of the management terminating service of the appellant.
1170 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J. The hollow plea of the employer of an alleged denial of an opportunity never claimed at any stage except in Letters Patent Appeal to substantiate an alleged misconduct of the workman by evidence aliunde has been responsible for dragging a tiny dispute rendering the workmen jobless for an unusually long period of more than 7 years to this apex companyrt.
Neither party examined any witness before the Tribunal.
Appellant submitted his explanation on 18th October 197 denying all the charges and companyplaining that as he is a trade union leader he is being singled out for victimisation.
M. Tarkunde, Anand Prakash, P. H. Parekh, C. B. Singh, Mukul Mudgal and Mrs. Anand Prakash for the Respondent.
Respondent employer felt aggrieved by such indiscipline exhibited by the appellant and decided to hold a disciplinary enquiry, as a first step towards which, a charge sheet dated Ist October 1970 was served upon the appellant calling upon him to submit his explanation within three days from the receipt of the charge sheet.
The appellant merely produced the papers of enquiry.
