HANUMAN JUTE MILLS Vs. AMIN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals by special leave are directed against the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta, which reversed the decision of the Third Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta. The appellant had filed applications under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking permission of the Tribunal to dismiss the respondents in both the appeals, which permission was granted. Against the orders of the Industrial Tribunal the respondents filed appeals before the Labour Appellate Tribunal.

(2.) The orders of the Industrial Tribunal disclose that the respondents had been warned on several occasions for their bad work and misbehaviour and with respect to some of them for even acts of violence. Thereafter the respondents absented themselves from work without leave on a particular date and for ten subsequent days, which in itself amounted to misconduct involving the penalty, if sought to be imposed, of dismissal under the Standing Orders of the appellant. The respondents explained their absence as involuntary owing to their arrest by the police and applied for leave of absence which was refused.

(3.) In appeal the Labour Appellate Tribunal was of the opinion that a substantial question of law arose because it thought that the Industrial Tribunal had not applied its mind to the question whether in proposing to dismiss the respondents the appellant was actuated by improper motive or was resorting to unfair labour practice or victimisation, relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Atherton West and Co. Ltd., Kanpur, U. P. v. Suti Mill Mazdoor Union, 1953 S C R 780 : (A I R 1953 S C 241) (A). The Appellate Tribunal accordingly entered into the merits and it came to the conclusion that, on the materials on the record, the appellant in proposing to dismiss the respondents was not acting bona fide and the case appeared to be one of victimisation.