http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: ANANDA BAZAR PATRIKA (P) LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ITS WORKMEN

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/05/1963

BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. WANCHOO, K.N. GUPTA, K.C. DAS

CITATION:  1964 AIR  339            1964 SCR  (3) 601  CITATOR INFO :  R          1972 SC 136  (22,24)

ACT: Industrial  Dispute-Discharge of workmen-Domestic enquiry in accordance with the principle of natural justice--Extent  of jurisdiction of industrial tribunal-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), s. 10 (1) (D).

HEADNOTE: The respondent was working as a Reporter of the Ananda Bazar Patrika. The Chief Reporter of the             Ananda  Bazar Patrika  proceeded  on  leave.  Before going  on  leave,  he appointed  ’M’ to act as Chief Reporter  temporarily  during his  absence.   The respondent was not satisfied  with  this arrangement  and  so  he began  to  ignore  the  assignments allotted  to him by the Acting Chief Reporter.   The  Acting Chief Reporter complained to the Managing-Director that  the respondent  was ignoring the assignments allotted to him  on the  basis of the above-mentioned complaint an  enquiry  was held against the respondent.  It was held day to day and the respondent  cross-examined  the witnesses  at  length.   The enquiry  officer did not allow the Editor to be examined  on behalf  of  the respondent on the ground that he was  not  a material witness.  The Enquiry Officer found that the charge had  been  proved against the  respondent.   The  Management accepted  the  enquiry report and discharged  him  from  the service. The  aforesaid dispute between the appellant and  respondent was referred to the Labour Court. The  Labour  Court  held  that  the  domestic  enquiry   was conducted  not in accordance with the principles of  natural ,justice  as  the respondent was not allowed  to  examine  a single witness.  The Labour Court directed the appellant  to reinstate the respondent. Held  that  at the domestic enquiry it is competent  to  the enquiry  officer  to  refuse  to examine  a  witness  or  to disallow  a question if be honestly comes to the  conclusion that  either  of  them are irrelevant  for  the  purpose  of enquiry. 602 (2)that  the  enquiry officer cannot be said to  have  acted

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

mala fide and contrary to the principles of natural  justice in  refusing  to  examine  the Editor  as  witness  for  the respondent  or in disallowing certain questions put  by  the respondent  to the witnesses on the ground that  these  were irrelevant for the purpose of enquiry. (3)  that  once  it is found that the  domestic  enquiry  is fair,  without malice and in accordance with the  principles of  natural justice and the conclusions of the said  enquiry are  not perverse then the Labour Court has no  jurisdiction to  consider the merits of the dispute between the  parties, and to enquire whether the findings recorded by the domestic tribunal are right or wrong.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 633 of 1962. Appeal  by  special leave from the award dated  December  8, 1959, of the, Second Labour Court, West Bengal, in Case  No. VIII-C-226 of 1958. A.   V.  Viswanatha  Sastri  and K. Baldev  Mehta,  for  the appellant. N.   C.  Chatterjee,  M. K. Ramamurthi, R. K.  Garg,  S.  C. Agarwala and D. P. Singh, for the respondents. 1963.  May 7. The,judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR.   J.-This appeal arises from  an  industrial dispute between the appellant, the Ananda Bazar Patrika  (P) Ltd., and the respondents, its workmen.  The appellant is  a private  limited  company  and carries on  the  business  of printing  and publishing newspapers, namely,  ’Ananda  Bazar Patrika’ which is a Bengali Daily, ’Desh’ which is a Bengali Weekly,  and ’Hindustan Standard’ which is an English  daily newspaper,  Mr.  Pulakesh  De Sarkar was  appointed  by  the management  of the appellant as journalist in  March,  1940, and has been  603 working  with  the  appellant  since  then  until  he   was’ discharged  from service by the appellant on May  15,  1958. The  Union  of  the  appellant’s  employees  took  up   this discharge and raised an industrial dispute about it.  In was urged  by  the  Union that the discharge.  of  Mr.  Sarkar’s services   was   illegal  and  that  he  was   entitled   to reinstatement   and/or  compensation.   This   dispute   was referred  by the Government of West Bengal for  adjudication to  the Second Labour Court on September 25, 1958.   By  its award  pronounced on December 8, 1959, the Labour Court  has directed  the appellant to reinstate Mr. Sarkar and pay  him ’his  emoluments for the period of his forced  unemployment. It appears that on January 27, 1959, the appellant had  paid some moneys to Mr. Sarkar, and so, the award directs that in paying emoluments to Mr. Sarkar under the provisions of  the award, adjustments should be made in respect of the  amounts already  paid by the appellant to him.  It is  against  this award  that the appellant has come to this Court by  special leave. The facts leading to the present industrial dispute  between the  parties are not many and can be very briefly stated  at the  outset.   It  appears that on December  16,  1957,  Mr. Shibdas  Bhattacharjee  who was the Chief  Reporter  of  the Ananda  Bazar Patrika, proceeded on leave.  Before going  on leave,   Mr.   Bhattacharjee   appointed   Mr.    Madhusudan Chakravorty to work as Chief Reporter temporarily during his absence.  Accordingly, he wrote a letter to that effect  and sent  its copies to the Editor of the Ananda Bazar  Patrika, to  the  News  Editor  of  the  said  Paper,  to  the  Chief

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

Accountant and to the Reporting Department.  The letter  was addressed  to  the Managing Director. of  the  Ananda  Bazar Patrika,  and a copy of it was hung on the Notice  Board  of the Reporting Section of the Ananda Bazar Patrika 604 Mr.  Sarkar  who was working as one of  the  Reporters  took exception  to this arrangement and interviewed the  Managing Director to request him to cancel the said arrangement.  The Managing Director told him that the letter had been  written by Mr. Bhattacharjee at the instance of the Accounts Depart- ment,  because  the Accounts Department wanted that  if  any arrangement  was  made during leave vacancy,  it  should  be evidenced  by  a document in order to  enable  the  Accounts Department  to  deal  with  the  acting  person  so  far  as financial  transactions were concerned.  Mr. Sarkar wag  not satisfied with the interview and so, he proceeded to write a letter  to the Managing Director and hung up a copy of  this letter  on the Notice Board.  In this letter he took  strong exception  to the arrangement made by Mr. Bhattacharjee  and expressed  his  indignation  against the  letter  which  Mr. Bhattacharjee had written to evidence the said  arrangement. "I  find  no reason". said Mr. Sarkar, in that  letter,  "to honour  that spurious letter and so, I would be standing  on my own right and merit, decide my assignments myself and act accordingly  till  the Chief Reporter resumes  his  office." This letter was written on December 20, 1957.  Copy of  this letter  was  sent by Mr. Sarkar to the Editor, to  the  News Editor and to the Reporting Department. True to the threat held out by him in his letter, Mr. Sarkar appeared  to ignore the assignments allotted to him  by  the Acting  Chief Reporter, Mr. Chakravorty.  When  this  matter was brought to the notice of the Managing Director, he wrote a  letter to Mr. Sarkar on December 31, 1957,  calling  upon him to how cause why action should not be taken against  him for his gross misconduct and subversive conduct.  Thereupon, Mr.  Sarkar  told the Managing Director that  he  was  quite willing  to remove his letter from the Notice Board  and  he gave him an account of  605 the  work which he had assigned to himself between  December 16 to December 31, 1957. Meanwhile  the  Acting  Chief  Reporter  complained  to  the Managing   Director  that  Mr.  Sarkar  was   ignoring   the assignments  allotted  to  him.   Ultimately.  the  Managing Director  wrote to Mr. Sarkar on January 11, 1958,  that  in view  of the- defiant attitude adopted by him, the  Managing Director was compelled to call upon Mr. Sarkar to show cause why he should not be dismissed for his insubordination.   On January  12, 1958, Mr. Sarkar gave an elaborate  explanation of  his conduct.  Since this explanation was not treated  by the  Managing  Director  as satisfactory,  he  informed  Mr. Sarkar  by his letter of January 29, 1958, that  an  enquiry would  be held against him and that he should appear  before Mr. S.K. Basu, Editor of the Hindustan Standard, in his room on February 1, 1958 at 1 P.M. Mr.  Basu  then  held an enquiry into  the  charges  already supplied  to  Mr.  Sarkar.   At  this  enquiry  Mr.   Sarkar elaborately  cross-examined the witnesses who gave  evidence against  him  and  gave his  own  evidence.   The  principal question  which  was  referred to the  enquiry  officer  was whether  Mr. Sarkar had flouted the lawful orders  given  to him  by  the  Acting Chief Reporter?   The  enquiry  officer considered the evidence, and came to the conclusion that Mr. Sarkar  was guilty of deliberate disobedience of the  lawful orders  of the Acting Chief Reporter who had  been  properly

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

appointed.  This report was made on April 14, 1958. The management of the appellant then considered the  report, examined  the evidence led at the enquiry, and came  to  the conclusion  that Mr. Sarkar was guilty of  gross  misconduct and  deserved to be dismissed, but in view of the fact  that he  had served the Paper for a long period,  the  management decided to discharge him from service.  Accordingly, on 606 May  15, 1958, the management wrote a letter to  Mr.  Sarkar that  his services had been terminated with effect from  May 16,  1958.  Mr. Sarkar was given one month’s pay in lieu  of notice,  and he was advised to collect his  dues,  including wages earned by him, gratuity and one month’s pay in lieu of notice from the cash office on May 19, 1958, at II A.M.  The letter  also  told  Mr.  Sarkar  that  the  Provident   Fund authorities  had been advised regarding the  termination  of his  service  and that, in due course,  the  Provident  Fund amount due to him would be paid.  Broadly stated, these  are the facts which give rise to the present dispute between the appellant and the Union which took up Mr. Sarkar’s case. The  extent of the jurisdiction which a Labour Court  or  an industrial  Tribunal  can  exercise  in  dealing  with  such disputes   is  well-settled.   If  the  termination  of   an industrial  employee’s  services  has been  proceeded  by  a proper  domestic enquiry which has been held  in  accordance with  the  rules  of natural  justice  and  the  conclusions reached at the said, enquiry are not perverse the  -Tribunal is not entitled to consider the propriety or the correctness of  the  said  conclusions.   If,  on  the  other  band,  in terminating the services of the employee’ the management has acted maliciously or vindictively or has been actuated by  a desire   to  punish  the  employee  for  his   trade   union activities, the Tribunal would be entitled to give  adequate protection to the employee by ordering his reinstatement, or directing in his favour the payment of. compensation; but if the  enquiry  has  been  proper  and  the  conduct  of   the management in dismissing the employee is not ma1a fide, then the  Tribunal cannot interfere with the conclusions  of  the enquiry officer, or with the orders passed by the management after accepting the said conclusions. In the present case, the Labour Court appears to have  taken the view that the enquiry was not fair 607 and  had not been conducted in accordance with the rules  of natural  justice.   Having  reached  this  conclusion,   the Tribunal proceeded to consider the merits of the controversy between  the  parties and has recorded  its  findings  after appreciating  the evidence led before it by  the  respective parties  in support of their contentions.  It has held  that Mr. Sarkar was not justified in hanging up his letter on the Notice  Board.  but  it took the view  that  the  management should not have taken action against him in view of the fact that Mr. Sarkar had removed the letter as soon as he  learnt that   the  management  took  exception  to   his   conduct. According  to  the Labour Court, Mr. Bhattacharjee  was  not authorised  to appoint Mr. Chakravorty as the  Acting  Chief Reporter  during his period of absence on leave, and so,  it thought  that  Mr. Chakravorty was not clothed  with  lawful authority  to  allot assignments to Mr.  Sarkar  during  Mr. Bhattacharjee’s absence.  In regard to the question that Mr. Sarkar  had decided his own as signposts, the  Labour  Court was not satisfied with the whole of the story deposed to  by the appellant’s witnesses and in any event, it held that the explanation  given  by  Mr. Sarkar in that  behalf  was  not unreasonable.   It  is on these findings that the  order  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

reinstatement has been passed by the Labour Court in  favour of Mr. Sarkar. The first q question which falls for our decision is whether the  Labour  Court was ’right in holding  that  the  enquiry conducted by Mr. Basu was not a fair enquiry.  In support of this conclusion, the Labour Court has observed that Mr. Basu had  not allowed Mr. Sarkar "to examine a single witness  on his behalf", and had disallowed some very relevant questions put  by Mr. Sarkar in cross-examination of  the  appellant’s witnesses.  It has also stated that the punishment meted out to  Mr. Sarkar is far too severe and it thought that it  was necessary  for  the appellant to consult the  Editor  before deciding upon the 608 punishment  which  should be imposed on Mr.  Sarkar.   These facts, according to the Labour Court, betrayed mala fides of the  appellant in this case, and so, it was not prepared  to accept the findings arrived at the domestic enquiry. Taking  the  first point about the failure of  Mr.  Basu  to allow  Mr.  Sarkar to examine even a single witness  on  his behalf,  it is surprising that the Labour Court should  have made  an  observation  which gives an  impression  that  Mr. Sarkar  wanted  to examine a large number of  witnesses.  of whom  not even a single witness was allowed to be  examined. The observation made by the Labour Court is misleading.   It is  true  that at one stage Mr. Sarkar stated  that  he  had filed  a  list  of witnesses, but that list is  not  on  the record before us.  What is on the record before us, however, unambiguously  shows that Mr. Sarkar wanted to examine  only one  witness  and  that is the Editor of  the  Ananda  Bazar Patrika.  In any case, there can be no doubt that he pressed his  claim  for  examining only one witness.   This  is  un- ambiguously proved by the record kept by Mr. Basu during the course of the domestic enquiry and by the statement made  by Mr.  Sarkar  before  the Labour Court  itself.   "’The  only witness", said Mr. Sarkar before the Labour Court.  "I cited in  the  domestic  enquiry was not allowed  by  the  enquiry officer." Therefore, it is unreasonable to make, a  sweeping statement  that  Mr.  Sarkar was not allowed  to  examine  a single witness.  The true position is that only one  witness was  intended to be examined by Mr. Sarkar and Mr. Basu  did not  allow  that.  It appears from the  proceedings  of  the domestic  enquiry  that Mr. Basu took the view that  on  the narrow  question which he had been called upon  to  consider the  Editor  would  have  been able  to.  give  no  material assistance,  and  so,  he thought that the  request  of  Mr. Sarkar to examine him could not be granted.  There can be no doubt that at the domestic enquiry  609 it is competent to the enquiry officer to refuse to  examine a  witness if he bona fide comes to the conclusion that  the said  witness  would be irrelevant or  immaterial.   If  the refusal  to  examine  such  a witness,  or  to  allow  other evidence to be led appears to be the result of the desire on the  part  of  the enquiry officer  to  deprive  the  person charged  of an opportunity to establish his innocence,  that of  course,  would  be a very serious matter.   But  in  the present  case, one has merely to look at the lengthy  record of  the enquiry to be satisfied that Mr. Basu conducted  the enquiry elaborately and allowed Mr. Sarkar fullest  latitude to cross-examine the management’s witnesses; the enquiry was conducted  from  day  to  day  and  the  record  shows   how elaborately  Mr.  Sarkar has utilised his  right  of  cross- examination  in  dealing with  the  management’s  witnesses. Therefore,  we  do not think that in refusing  Mr.  Sarkar’s

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

request  to examine the Editor, the enquiry officer  can  be said  to have acted capriciously or mala fide.  He seems  to have  thought  honestly that the said witness would  not  be material  or relevant.  That being so, we do not think  that this circumstance can render the enquiry unfair. The  other  criticism made by the Labour Court  against  the said  enquiry is that some very relevant questions had  been disallowed  by Mr. Basu.  In our opinion, this criticism  is wholly  misconceived.  We have looked at the proceedings  of the enquiry and we are satisfied that most of the  questions which were disallowed were properly disallowed ; in fact Mr. Chatterjee has not been able to show how the criticism  made by the Labour Court in this part of its award is  justified. Some  of  the questions put by Mr. Sarkar to  the  witnesses were not only irrelevant, but wholly unfair, and so, it  was the duty of Mr. Basu to disallow those questions.   Besides, in dealing with this aspect of the matter, the Labour  Court should not have overlooked the fact that relevance 610 of  questions  had  to  be  decided  by  Mr.  Basu  who  was conducting  the enquiry; and even if the Labour  Court  took the  view  that some questions which  were  disallowed  were relevant, that would not necessarily make the enquiry unfair or  improper unless of course, in disallowing  the  relevant questions,  it  can be shown that Mr. Basu was  acting  mala fide.  Therefore, this criticism also is of Do avail. Then, the Labour Court has observed that it was the duty  of the Management to have consulted the Editor before  deciding upon  the punishment to be meted out to Mr. Sarkar.  We  are surprised that the Labour Court should have treated this  as a  valid reason for impeaching the fairness of the  enquiry. We do not understand how it was necessary or obligatory  for the  management  to  consult the Editor  before  taking  any action against Mr. Sarkar.  Besides, it is significant  that though the management accepted the finding of Mr. Basu  that Mr. Sarkar was guilty of gross misconduct, it has  purported to act fairly by Mr. Sarkar inasmuch as it took into account his  long  association with the paper, and  so,  instead  of dismissing  him,  it  merely discharged  him  from  service. Therefore,  we  have no doubt that the ground given  by  the Labour Court that the failure to consult the Editor made the conduct of the management malafide, is wholly unsustainable. It does appear that an argument was urged before the  Labour Court  that  the  enquiry officer  being  an  outsider,  the enquiry  was void ab initio.  This objection had been  over- ruled  by the Labour Court and, in our opinion,  the  Labour Court  was right.  It also appears that it was urged  before the  Labour  Court  by the respondents that  Mr.  Basu  bore malice to Mr. Sarkar because of an incident which had  taken place  in regard to the management of the Provident Fund  of the  employees of the Ananda Bazar Patrika.  It does  appear that Mr. Basu and the Managing Director of the Ananda  Bazar Patrika were the Trustees of  611 the said Fund along with 3 other Trustees and the conduct of the Trustees in allowing a fairly large amount of this Trust Fund  as  a  loan to the management was  criticised  by  the members  of  the Fund, and in consequence of  the  agitation carried on in that behalf, Sir.  Basu who was originally the Trustee  of the Fund was not elected at the next  elections. This dispute, however, was amicably settled and the parties agreed to terms of settlement on March 7/9, 1957.      It was urged by Mr. Sarkar that since he had    taken a leading part in the agitation against the conduct of the Trustees in making a loan from the Provident Fund to the management, Mr.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

Basu  and the Managing Director were hostile to  him.   Even this  argument has not been accepted by the Labour Court  on the ground that Mr. Sarkar had raised no contention of  this kind at the time of the enquiry.  Apart from this  technical aspect, however, we are satisfied that there is no  evidence to show that Mr.Basu or the Managing Director of the  Ananda Bazar Patrika bore any ill-will to Mr. Sarkar.  In fact, the evidence  indicates  that Mr. Sarkar is  conveniently  over- rating the part played by him in the agitation in regard  to the  said  impugned  transaction of  loan.   Therefore,  the Labour  Court was, in our opinion, right in  rejecting  this contention. The  position,  thus is that the conclusion  of  the  Labour Court  that the enquiry was not fair and that the  appellant has  acted  mala fide in discharging Mr.  Sarkar  cannot  be sustained.   We  have  repeatedly pointed  out  that  though industrial  adjudication  can and  must  protect  industrial employees from victimisation, a finding as to mala fides  or victimisation  should be drawn only where evidence has  been led to justifiy it; such a finding should not be made either in  a causal manner or lightheartedly.  In our  opinion,  no material was produced before the Labour Court in the present proceedings  to justify its finding either that the  enquiry was unfair, or 612 that the conduct of the appellant in discharging Mr.  Sarkar was mala fide. As  soon  as we reach this conclusion, it follows  that  the Labour  Court had no jurisdiction to consider the merits  of the dispute between the parties, and to enquire whether  the findings  recorded  by the domestic tribunal were  right  or not.   We have, however, heard Mr. Chatterjee at  length  on the  question as to whether Mr. Bhattacharjee had  authority to  appoint  Mr.  Chakravorty as an  Acting  Chief  Reporter during his absence on leave, because it appeared to us  that if evidence clearly showed that the appointment made by  Mr. Bhattacharjee  was contrary to the rules prevailing  in  the institution  or was inconsistent with the practice,  it  may perhaps  justify  his grievance that Mr.  Basu  should  have allowed the Editor to be examined on the assumption that the Editor could have spoken to the remailing rules or  practice in that- behalf.  Mr. Sarkar’s case is that the Editor is in charge of the whole of the Reporting Department and in  case the  Chief Reporter goes on leave, it is for the  Editor  to make  an  appointment of the Acting Chief Reporter.   It  is remarkable that though Mr. Sarkar has raised this point from the start, he has not stated on oath anything in support  of the  practice  on  which  he  relies.   Mr.  Chatterjee  has referred  us to several statements in his evidence,  but  he fairly  conceded  that  Mr.  Sarkar  has  now-here  made   a categorical  statement on oath that during the  long  period that he had been working with this Paper, practice ever  was that  when  the  Chief Reporter went on  leave,  the  Editor appointed  an  Acting Chief Reporter in the  leave  vacancy. The  failure  of  Mr.  Sarkar to  make  such  a  categorical statement or to refer to any incident in support of his plea is not without significance. But apart from it, there is abundant evidence adduced before the Labour Court which shows that  613 Mr.  Sarkar’s  contention  is not  well-founded.   We’  have already  noticed that Mr. Sarkar saw the  Managing  Director and  in  the  letter he had pasted on the  notice  board  on December  20, 1957, Mr. Sarkar had stated clearly  that  the Managing Director had told him that the only thing of  which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

the   Managing   Director  was  aware  was   "the   Accounts Department’s insistence on authorising somebody by the Chief Reporter  before  he went on leave  through  whom  financial transaction,  if  any,  would take  place."  This  statement clearly  shows  that the Managing Director told  Mr.  Sarkar that the Accounts Department wanted something in writing  by the  Chief  Reporter whenever he went on leave to  show  who would  be  acting as the Acting Chief  Reporter  during  his absence.  This statement is contained in Mr. Sarkar’s letter and  embodies  what  he was told by  the  Managing  Director himself.   The  authorisation had, therefore, to be  by  the Chief  Reporter  and  not by the Editor  according  to  this statement. Then we have a letter from Mr. Chakravorty to the Director’s Department  written on January 3, 1958.  This  letter  shows that  on several occasions when the Chief Reporter had  gone on leave, Mr. Chakravorty had been assigned the work of  the Chief  Reporter.   In  that capacity,  he  had  managed  the Department, allotted assignments to the other Reporters  and functioned  as an Acting Chief Reporter.  Mr. A.  K.  Sarkar who is the Managing Director of the Ananda Bazar Patrika has stated  on  oath that the usual practice in the  Patrika  is that  when  the Chief Reporter or any Head  of  any  Section remains  absent,  he  nominates  his  successor  during  his absence.  There had been ,some controversy about the  letter written  by Mr. Bhattacharjee nominating Mr. Chakravorty  as an Acting Chief Reporter, and it was fairly conceded by  Mr. A. K. Sarkar that this letter was written 614 because the Accounts Department insisted on some writing  to show the appointment of an Acting Chief Reporter.  Formerly, the Chief Reporter used to make verbal arrangements for work during his absence.  The Acting Chief Reporter has authority to  take  cash from the Accounts Department to  pay  to  the Reporters  whenever necessary.  Therefore, the  evidence  of Mr.  A. K. Sarkar establishes the appellant’s case that  Mr. Bhattacharjee was justified in making the appointment of Mr. Chakravorty  as Acting Chief Reporter in his  absence.   The evidence given by two Reporters of the Ananda Bazar  Patrika Mr.  G.K. Ghosh and Mr. A. Chowdhary is to the same  effect. Thus, apart from the fact that Mr. Sarkar has not taken  the oath  in  support  of  his plea, the  evidence  led  by  the appellant  clearly shows that all that Mr. Bhattcharjee  did on  December 16, 1957 was in accordance with the  prevailing practice in the institution. Indeed,  it sounds common-sense that if the  Chief  Reporter goes  on leave, should make some arrangement to enable  some other  reporter to act in his place during his  absence  and should   intimate   accordingly  to  the  other   heads   of departments  and to the Managing Director.  It  is  possible that  other institutions may have other rules, or may  adopt another  kind of practice, but on the evidence,  adduced  in this  case,  it is impossible to sustain Mr.  Sarkar’s  plea that  Mr. Bhattacharjee acted outside his authority  and  he was, therefore, justified in adopting the militant  attitude which was disclosed by his letter of December 20, 1957 which was  pasted  by  him  on the notice  board.   It  is  hardly necessary  to  point  out  that even if  Mr.  Sarkar  had  a grievance   in  the  matter  of  the  appointment   of   Mr. Chakravorty,  he  should  not  have  adopted  the  extremely militant  attitude  by announcing that he  would  assign  to himself  his  duties  and  would take  no  orders  from  Mr. Chakravorthy  615 Therefore,  we  do not think that even on  the  merits,  Mr.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

Chatterjee  is right in contending that the refusal  of  Mr. Basu  to  examine the Editor of the Paper  was  unjustified, much  less can it be said to be perverse or malicious so  as to sustain the contention that the enquiry held by the  said officer  without  examining  the Editor is  unfair  and  has contravened the rules of natural justice. Mr.  Chatterjee no doubt urged before us the fact  that  Mr. Sarkar  has  long and meritorious service to his  credit  in this  institution, and he told us that he had taken part  in the  national  movement  and  had  adopted  the  career   of journalism  out  of patriotic and  national  feelings.   He, therefore, appealed to us to consider whether the  appellant should  be asked to reinstate him in its  employment.   When this aspect of the matter was put to Mr. Sastri who appeared for  the appellant, Mr. Sastri told us after consulting  his client  that having regard to the nature of  the  misconduct which has been held proved against Mr. Sarkar, the appellant was not inclined to take him back. In  the result, the appeal succeeds and the order passed  by the  Labour Court is set aside.  There would be no order  as to costs. Appeal allowed. 616