on the companypanys taking up companystruction of a boundary wall on the aforesaid plot in april or may 1967 the appellant who was the president pradhan of the jhuggi jhoupari sudhar sabha and a few other jhuggi dwellers brought a suit being suit number 418 of 1967 in the companyrt of the sub judge first class delhi for injunction restraining the companypany and respondent number 1 from constructing the boundary wall and from evicting them from the jhuggies.
the learned companynsel for the appellant has contended before me that their passage from the jhuggis towards the najafgarh drain would be obstructed by the companystruction of this wall.
shri lalla ram also said that they were number afraid of the uniform i.e. security staff who are meant for safeguarding the property of the companypany and enforcing the discipline.
on the basis of the voluntary statement made on behalf of the companypany to the effect that it would number evict the appellant and his companyplaintiffs except by a due process of law the sub judge issued a temporary injunction restraining the companypany and respondent number 1 from evicting the appellant and his companyplaintiffs except by a due process of law but refused their prayer for injunction restraining the companypany and respondent number 1 from building the boundary wall.
agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officers that the aforesaid acts companymitted by the appellant were subversive of discipline and companystituted misconduct as companytemplated by standing order 27 1 the general manager of respondent number 1.
the learned trial companyrt it appears ordered the defendant to leave a cate of about 10 width for the passage of the jhuggi dwellers while companystructing the boundary wall in question.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by jaswant singh j. this appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated numberember 19 1970 of the high companyrt of delhi rendered in civil writ petition number 373 of 1969 setting aside the order dated april 23 1969 of the additional industrial tribunal delhi rejecting respondent number 1s application under section 33 2 of the industrial disputes act 1947 hereinafter referred to as the act seeking approval of its order of the appellants dismissal from service passed during the pendency of an industrial dispute.
there is hardly any justification to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned trial court.
passed an order on may 2 1968 dismissing the appellant from service.
chemical works standing order 27 1 was number attracted in the present case which was really a case of civil dispute between the companypany and jhuggi dwellers who were long being pressurized to surrender possession of the area to the companypany and the machinery of security staff of d.c.m.
it would be profitable to refer to the companycluding portion of the report which reads thus shri shyam singh is a member of the security staff and a responsible officer of the company.
number satisfied with the explanation tendered by the appellant the management of respondent number 1 detailed two of its officers to inquire into the aforesaid charges against the appellant.
the learned trial companyrt exercised the discretion keeping in view the right of the defendants to companystruct the boundary wall in their own land as also the convenience of plaintiffs appellants.
on reaching the spot and finding sheo ram companystructing a new jhuggi in front of his existing jhuggi shyam singh pleaded with the former and asked him to desist from companystructing the new jhuggi.
the action of shri lalla ram is certainly number justified in so far as he intervened and obstructed shri shyam and other security staff and in the process shri lalla ram questioned the authority of a superior officer security staff called him and his sepoys gondas caught hold of him by his hand and pushed him and threatened him.
shri shyam singh is an officer of the companypany and is senior to shri lalla ram.
the appellant submitted his explanation denying the charges levelled against him and questioning the authority of tile respondent to charge sheet him in respect of an incident which was purely private.
unnerved by the threats held out by the appellant shyam singh left the place along with his security personnel and hastened to make a report of the incident to his immediate superior which led to the suspension of the appellant and issue to him of a numberice by general manager of respondent number 1 calling upon him to show cause as to why he should number be dismissed for his aforesaid misbehaviour towards and attempt to assault shyam singh who was discharging his official duties which were acts subver sive of discipline within the meaning of standing order 27 1 applicable to him.
chemical works jhuggi area that it was clear that dharam singh a member of the watch and ward staff placed on duty to protect the property pt the companypany had numbericed sheo ram companystructing new walls in front of his jhuggi that on reaching the spot on the evening of march 2 1968 shyam singh saw the freshly constructed walls of the height of about 5 and some building material lying in front of sheo rams jhuggi and was accordingly justified in investigating into the matter that when shyam singh was telling sheo ram that he should number companystruct a new jhuggi or extend the jhuggi the appellant questioned the authority of shyam singh and abused and manhandled him and in so doing was guilty of misconduct within the meaning of standing order 27 1 .
aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the additional industrial tribunal respondent number 1 moved the high companyrt of delhi under article 226 of the companystitution.
we find shri lalla ram guilty of the charge.
while he was so engaged the appellant who was also an employee of respondent number 1 made his appearance alongwith eight to ten jhuggi dwellers and adopting a very aggressive attitude intervened on behalf of sheo ram and questioned the authority of shyam singh who was senior to him to make inquiries in regard to the companystruction during the pendency of the aforesaid litigation.
chemical works was pressed into service for that purpose.
since however an industrial dispute was pending the general manager directed the appellant to take his final dues together with one months pay in lieu of numberice and made an application on the same day to the industrial tribunal delhi seeking its approval of the order of the appellants dismissal as required by section 3 3 2 b of the act.
aggrieved by the rejection of their player with regard to issue of injunction regarding companystruction of the boundary wall the appellant and his companyplaintiffs preferred an appeal to the senior sub judge by his order dated february 28 1968 observing the dispute between the parties is only regarding the companystruction of the boundary wall along the najafgarh drain.
while holding that the enquiry officers were number biased against the appellant that there was numberviolation of the principles of natural justice and that it companyld number be said that the findings of the enquiry officers were number based upon any evidence or that the same were perverse the additional industrial tribunal delhi refused by its order dated april 23 1969 to accord its approval to the appellants dismissal on the grounds that the disciplinary action taken against the appellant was misconceived that since there was numberrational companynection between the employment of the appellant and shyam singh in regard to the affairs of the d.c.m.
on companypletion of the inquiry in accordance with the standing orders the enquiry officers submitted a unanimous report observing therein that it was number the appellants case that either sheo ram or any other person was being evicted from any of the jhuggies standing on the area which was admittedly knumbern as d.c.m.
against him namely obstructing the assistant security officer in the discharge of official duties and threatening him and catching hold of him by hand and thereby companymitted acts subversive of discipline a misconduct under the standing order number 27 1 .
appeal by special leave from the judgment order the 19th numberember 1970 of the delhi high companyrt in c.w.
the applicants had number claimed any right of easement or irrevocable licence against the construction of this wall and so they do number appear to have any right to companypel the defen dants respondents number to companystruct this wall.
on the evening of march 2 1968 shyam singh assistant security officer of respondent number 1 received a report from sentry dharam singh alleging that one sheo ram had started making an unauthorised companystruction on the aforesaid plot.
after taking over the watch and ward of the plot the management of respondent number 1 posted some sentries to prevent encroachment and unauthorised companystruction thereon.
anand prakash and m. k. d. namboodri for respondent number 1.
number 373 of 1969 .
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 351 of 1971.
in the discharge of his official duties of preventing encroachment and unauthorised companystruction on the immovable property belonging to he companypany shyam singh proceeded to the spot accompanied by two members of his staff to investigate info the matter.
the sub judge however directed the company and respondent number 1 to leave 10 feet wide gate for the passage of the appellant and his companyplaintiffs.
under the circumstances we companyclude that shri lalla ram companymitted the acts alleged.
c. agarwala for the appellant.
in the discharge of official duties of protecting the property of the companypany and preventing its misuse if shri shyam singh wanted to investigate into the matter reported to him by shri dharam singh he was perfectly within his rights.
he also manhandled shyam singh hurled highly provocative invectives at him and his companions and bade them to quit on pain of dire consequences.
the facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are behind the premises situate on najafgarh road delhi of respondent number 1 which is a unit of the delhi cloth and general mills companypany limited hereinafter referred to as the company there is a plot of land admeasuring 181 acres ownership whereof was transferred in favour of the companypany by the erstwhile delhi improvement trust number companystituted as delhi development authority vide sale deed dated may 20 1964.
there are also some jhuggies hutments standing on the land in which live 172 families out of which 70 are of the employees of respondent number 1 and the rest are of some outsiders.
the plot being adjacent to the premises of respondent number 1 the same was being looked after by the management of the respondent which also companystructed some quarters thereon for the use of its employees.
