he failed to attend the same and sent a letter asking for an open enquiry in which representatives of the Labour Department, Dhanbad should be present.
On 28th March 1961, the Government of Bihar referred an Industrial Dispute to the Labour Court, Ranchi regarding the dismissal of the II workmen including the respondent Bishwanath Prasad.
With regard to Bishwanath Prasad the Tribunal examined the facts and circumstances relied on by the parties and held that the order of dismissal was number vitiated on any of the well known grounds of interference as laid down Indian Iron and Steel.
Quite unconnected with the above matter, there was trouble in the factory on 10th January, 1916 when one group of workers is alleged to have assaulted another group due to inter Union rivalry.
The Tribunal also examined the plea put forward on behalf of the workers that the orders of dismissal should be held to be illegal inasmuch as they were all passed during the pendency of a companyciliation proceeding.
The explanation given by Bishwanath Prasad to the charge sheet was that he had made the report to the police after receiving a companyplaint from kashinath Singh, a member of his Union with numberintention to undermine the prestige of the officers companycerned and the discipline in the factory, but simply to pacify the workers who were very much excited owing to the action of the officer.
The Company dismissed 10 workmen on the ground of their assaulting two, others on 28th January, 1961.
The Labour Court examined the merits of the matter and held that the orders of dismissal meted out by the management to all the workmen would have to be maintained and the workmen were number entitled to any relief.
Co.s Case 1 1958 S.C.R. 667.
The Tribunal numbered that numberevidence had been led to sustain the plea and the Union had only placed on record, carbon companyies of two letters which were alleged to have been addressed to the Labour Officer, Dhanbad.
Examining the facts and circumstances in the light of the principles formulated by this Court in the case of Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen 1 at page 685 that In case of dismissal on misconduct, the Tribunal does number, however, act as a Court of appeal and substitute its own judgment for that of the management.
The Management served the respondent Bishwanath Prasad with a charge sheet on 23rd January 1961 to show cause why disciplinary action should number be taken against him for his misconduct subversive of discipline in making serious defamatory allegations against the officers in general and to two of the officers in particular who had been put to great harassment and humiliation at the investigation by the police.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 12, 1965 of the Patna High Court in Misc.
The respondent, Bishwanath Prasad, filed a petition under Arts.
the Tribunal held that the finding of the Management with regard to the guilt of the 10 workmen other than Bishwanath Prasad was number in any way unwarranted or perverse and the Management was number actuated by bid faith.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
226 and 227 of the Constitution before the Patna High Court challenging the award inter alia on the ground that the Labour Court had failed to appreciate that the enquiry officer had acted malafide and in violation of the principles of natural justice in holding the enquiry.
Judicial Case No.
The enquiry officer sent in his report and The Management acting thereupon dismissed the res pondent from service with effect from the date of sus pension, namely, 23rd January, 1961.
The facts are as follows.
The first respondent, Bishwanath Prasad, a workman of the appellant, made a companyplaint in writing to the officer in charge of Nirsa Police station on September 19, 1960 stating inter alia that the members of his Union were being harassed repeatedly by the Management of the companypany and that the laboratories bad reported on that day that an Assistant Manager, a Labour Welfare Officer and others had broken open the lock of the room of a worker by the name of Kashi Nath Singh and thrown away his belongings when he was actually on duty.
2167 of 1966.
K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta.
B. Pai and D. N. Gupta, for the appellant.
614 of 1962.
1 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of an order of the Patna High Court setting aside the award dated 23rd February, 1962 made by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court Ranchi and remitting the matter back to him for making a fresh award in accordance with the observations of the High Court.
After enquiry the officer in charge Nirsa police station submitted a final report on 19th November 1960 to the effect that the companyplainant Bishwanath Prasad had deliberately brought a false companyplaint.
It appears that an enquiry into the matter was fixed by the Management and the respondent was asked to appear at the enquiry on 30th January, 1961 but.
The police were requested to take proper action against the said Assistant Manager.
for respondent No.
The Sub Divisional Officer of the District acting on the final report dismissed the companyplaint on 12th January 1961.
A companyplaint was also made that the letters from the companyciliation officer Dhanbad were ignored by the Labour Court.
