132 1 of the Constitution of India from the Judgment and Order dated June 1, 1950 1 of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta Harries C. J. and Banerjee J. in Civil Rule No.
But leave was granted under article 132 1 of the Constitution, and that is how the matter has number companye up before us.
have to pay regard primarily to the pith and 1 1949 F. C. R. 321.
Whether on the facts of a particular case the dismissal of an employee was wrongful or justified is a question primarily for the Tribunal to decide, and here the Tribunal held that the dismissals were clear cases of victimisation and hence wrongful.
These companytentions were negatives by the learned Judges, and the petitions were dismissed.
Both the petitions were heard by Harries C. J. and Sambhu Nath Baneriee J. The points raised before them on behalf of the petitioners were five in all a that there was numberindustrial dispute, and therefore there companyld be numberreference under the Industrial Disputes Act to any Tribunal b that the said Act was number applicable to disputes with Municipalities e that even if it did, it was ultra vires d that the Tribunal should number have directed reinstatement of the dismissed employees and e that the award was bad on the merits.
N. Mukherjee for respondent.
The point is companyered by Profulla Kumar Mookerjee v. Bank of Commerce Ltd., Khulna 1 .
Sen for respondents Nos.
The Tribunal made its award on 13th February, 1950,.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Case No.
1 and 2.
At the instance of the High Court, a separate application was filed under article 227.
There were prayers in the petition for quashing the proceedings before the Tribunal, for cancellation of the award, and for an order restraining the authorities from giving effect to the award and from taking any steps in pursuance thereof.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRA,SEKHARA AIYAR J. Pratul Chandra Mitra was the Head Clerk, and Phanindra Nath Ghose, the Sanitary Inspector of the Budge Budge Municipality, and they were also members of the Municipal Workers Union.
Appeal under Art.
282 of 1951.
December 5.
At the instance of the Municipal Workers Union, who questioned the propriety of the dismissal the matter was referred by the State of West Bengal on 24th September, 1949, to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Panchanan Ghose A. K. Dutt and B. L. Jarafdar, with him for the appellant.
that the suspension and punishment of the two employees were cases of victimisation, and it directed their reinstatement in their respective offices, The Municipality took the matter to the High Court at Calcutta by means of a petition for a writ of certiorari under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
After the explanations were received, they were companysidered at a meeting of the Commissioners held on 6th August, 1949, and by a majority, the Commissioners companyfirmed the order of suspension and directed the dismissal of the two employees.
On receipt of companyplaints against them for negligence, insubordination and indiscipline, the Chairman of the Municipality suspended them on 13th July, 1949, drew up separate proceedings, and called for an explanation within a specified date.
563 of 1950 and Original Side Matter No.
25 of 1950.
