He was asked to show cause why he should number be dismissed for misconduct.
This matter was apparently brought to the numberice of the companypany in October 1957 and thereupon a charge sheet was served on the respondent to the effect that he had stolen the cycle of Ram Chandra, Head Clerk, that it had been recovered at his instance and that a criminal case was pending against him with the police.
The matter came before the tribunal on May 6, 1958.
The matter was reported to the police.
The companypany thereupon applied for special leave to this Court resulting in the present appeal.
In Shri Bimal Kanta Mukherjee v. Messrs. Newsmans Printing Works 1956 L.A.C. 188 , this was the view taken by the Labour Appellant Tribunal.
The appellant is a companypany carrying on the manufacture of textiles.
In the meantime, the respondent had been acquitted by the criminal companyrt on April 8, 1958, on the ground that the case against him was number free from doubt.
Thereafter an application was made under s. 33 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, No.
The respondent appeared before the enquiry companymitted but stated that as the case was pending against him, he did number want to produce any defence till the matter was decided by the companyrt.
The respondent submitted his explanation on October 13, 1957.
As his explanation was unsatisfactory, November 14, 1957, was fixed for enquiry.
The respondent Kushal Bhan was in the employ of the companypany as a peon.
He further stated that he did number want to take part in the enquiry and was number prepared to give any answers to questions put to him.
The companypany, however, companypleted the enquiry and directed the dismissal of the respondent on the ground that the misconduct had been proved against him.
It appears that the cycle of Ram Chandra, Head Clerk of the Folding Department was stolen on August 24, 1957.
The companyy of the judgment of the criminal companyrt was produced before the tribunal and it refused to approve the order of dismissal.
When questions were put to him at the enquiry he refused to answer them and eventually he left the place.
Sometime later, the cycle was recovered from the railway station cycle stand at the instance of the respondent who took the police there and picked out the stolen cycle from among 50/60 cycles standing there.
Wanchoo, J. This is an appeal by special leave in an industrial matter.
14 of 1947, by the companypany to the tribunal for approval of the action taken against the respondent.
