Case: Ballarpur Collieries Company Vs. State Industrial Court

is in fact no managerial inquiry worth the name in this case. This is what the Appellate Tribunal has also pointed out, and we think rightly. This is also borne out by the fact that before the industrial tribunal the appellant examined a number of witnesses which would have been unnecessary if there had been a proper managerial inquiry. It seems from this fact that it was practically accepted before the industrial tribunal that there was no proper managerial inquiry and it was left to the industrial tribunal to decide for itself whether the dismissal of Dhaneswar was justified. In these circumstances, there was no scope for the application of the principles laid down in Indian Iron and Steel Company v. Their workmen [1958 - I L. L. J. 260 (S. C.)] (vide supra) which applies only where a proper managerial inquiry has been held. This contention must therefore be negatived. "(43) REFERENCE in the above case to the decision of Indian Iron and Steel Company case [1958 - I l. L. J. 260 (S. C.)] (vide supra) is also opposite in the instant case. At pp. 269-270 [indian Iron and Steel Company v. Their workmen] the circumstances in which the action taken by the management in dismissing can be challenged and the test or the conditions which justified interference are laid down in the following words :". . . . . . . Undoubtedly, the management of a concern has power to direct its own internal administration and discipline; but the power is not unlimited and when a dispute arises, industrial tribunals have been given the power to see whether the termination of service of a workmen is justified and to give appropriate relief. In cases of dismissal on misconduct, the tribunal does not, however, act as a Court of appeal and substitute its own judgment for that of the management. It will interfere. (i) when there is a want of good faith, (ii) when there is victimization or unfair labour practice, (iii) when the management has been guilty of a basic error or violation of a principle of natural justice, and (iv) when on the materials, the finding is completely baseless or perverse. "(44) IN the instant case, therefore, the jurisdiction of the industrial authorities could not be seriously disputed in view of their finding that the domestic enquiry was vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice and a further finding of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour that the circumstances in which the show-cause notice came to be issued was not a bona fide action on the part of the petitioner. If the industrial tribunals have come to this decision, we have no reason to feel that the decision regarding violation of the principles of natural justice is in any way erroneous. The ambit of enquiry is certainly then extended. It is then that the petitioner invited the tribunal to adjudicate on the validity or otherwise of the action actually taken by the employer. If the action is then judged on merits and the industrial tribunal came to the conclusions that the action was not justified, in our opinion, the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal to come to such a conclusion cannot be challenged in view of the pronouncement of the supreme Court already quoted. Now, in the instant case it has been found that there was no occasion for issuance of a lawful order and respondent 3 disobeying it because respondent 3 was genuinely under the impression that his services were terminated as a result of the talk with the junior partner on 22 June, 1959. There was no occasion for disobeying the order after 1 July, 1959 till 10 July, 1959, because nobody gave him work. A stenographer cannot work unless work is entrusted to him such as dictation or typing. The third charge levelled, i. e. , an attempt to cheat the company which, as we have shown above, could not possibly be levelled when respondent 3 had disclaimed and right to wages or salary for the period from 1 July, 1959 to 10 July, 1959, when he had marked his attendance. Marking of attendance also showed that respondent 3 wanted to attend the office and be present in case the employers decided to settle the matter regarding compensation. The fact that he had applied for leave of absence for sickness or for some other work does not negative his contention that he considered himself as no longer on duty because of the talk between him and the junior partner. Even assuming that the impression was erroneous, it is insufficient to charge responded 3 with any criminal intent or with deliberate act of violation of his duty or disobeying of a lawful order. We, therefore, do not see how the findings of the tribunal on merits also can be challenged by the petitioner in the instant case. They are findings of fact and if the tribunals have come to those findings in legitimate exercise of powers, the jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked in challenging those findings because a different view may possibly be taken. Even assuming that there is scope for a difference of opening as to the view to be taken about the action taken, this is not the forum in which the petitioner can agitate the findings of the two industrial tribunals. We, therefore, hold that the industrial courts below cannot be said to have exceeded their jurisdiction in coming to the conclusion that there was no justification for the petitioner to pass the order dated 31 July, 1939, dismissing respondent 3 from service for the alleged misconduct attributed to him.(45) IN view of these conclusions there is no scope for interference with the orders of the two authorities below. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, instead of ordering reinstatement, has only directed compensation to be paid to respondent 3. No arguments were addressed as to the quantum of compensation or the basis on which it was to be paid.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds](20) WE propose to deal with each of the points in the same order. It is undoubtedly true that theat any rate, its head office at Nagpur, is registered under the provisions of the Central Provinces and Berar Shops and Establishments Act, 1947. Under that Act, either a commercial establishment or a shop is required to be registered as such. It was not clear during arguments whether the petitioners head office was registered as a commercial establishment or as a shop. A commercial establishment under the Shops and Establishments Act means an establishment which is not a shop but which carries on the business of advertising, commission agency, forwarding or commercial agency, or which is a clerical department of a factory or of any industrial or commercial undertaking, or which is an insurance company,company, bank brokers office, exchange, or such other class of establishment as the Provincial government may, by notification, declare to be a commercial establishment for the purpose of this Act. Shop, on the other hand, is defined as any premises where goods are sold either by retail or wholesale or both or where services are rendered to customers, and includes offices,godowns or warehouses, whether in the same premises or otherwise, used in connexion with such trade or business but does not include a restaurant, anor a commercial establishment, or a shop attached to a factory where the persons employed in the shop are allowed the benefits provided for workers under the Factories Act. It does not appear that any goods are sold in the head office as such though orders may have been received for the supply of coal and in that sense the business of selling or supplying coal products from the mines owned by themay be carried on. Perhaps the business done by the head office is more consistent with its description as commercial agency or more appropriately a clerical department of any industrial or commercial undertaking. The petitioner has itself averred that it owned coal mines and that it did the business of raising, supplying and selling ofis not possible to accept this contention urged on behalf of the petitioner. That this is not the effect of the Shops and Establishments Act is clear while we compare the aim and object and the ambit of the legislation which is to regulate the conditions of work and employment in shops, commercial establishments, restaurants,theatres and other establishments. The Act purports to regulate relationship of employer and employee in what are called commercial employments. On the other hand, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act which was passed by Parliament or the Industrial Disputes Settlement Act which was passed by the State legislature covered altogether a different field and much wider area. They govern all the relations between the employer and employee in an industrial employment and in effect lay down conditions of service over and above what are determined by a contract of service between an employer and employee. Whereas the purpose of the Shops and Establishments Act is limited, the object with which the legislation such as the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 is put on the statute book and amended from time to time clearly shows that it covers a wider field of industrial relations and is mainly for adjudication and determination of industrial and labour disputes. A perusal of the provisions of the Shops and Establishments Act shows that there is no means or machinery or forum before which a dispute by an employee who is dismissed under S. 23, even assuming that the dismissal was improper or wrong, can be taken under the Shops and Establishments Act. What S. 23 provides is a limited security against dismissal from service, except for misconduct, after one months notice or one months wages in lieu of notice. This safeguard which is provided in S. 23 is of a very limited character and no other provision of the Act can be pointed out to show that the general relations between the employer and employee and the rights and obligations of one partythe other are regulated or governed by any other provisions of this Act. On the other hand, the provisions of the State or the Central Industrial Disputes Act govern the totality of relationship between the employer and employee. When the employment is of an industrial character, it may well be that the employee who may be said to be governed by the Shops and Establishments Act also comes to be governed by the legislation regarding the industrial employment and the relationship between the employer and employee in the industrial field. Such overlapping of jurisdiction or field regarding relationship between the employer and employee when the employment partakes of both the characters, namely, commercial employment and industrial employment, is not excluded by any provisions of the Shops and establishments Act. We are, therefore, clear that the mere fact that the head office of theis registered under the Shops and Establishments Act, either as a commercial establishment or as a shop, will not exclude the application of the provisions of the Industrial disputes Act or the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, if they are otherwise applicable to theWe, therefore, find it difficult to accept the contention urged on behalf of theis not disputed that the head office is a part of integrated activity of thewhich carries on the business of producing coal and its sale and supply to its various customers. The employees in the head office admittedly are liable to be sent for work at the mines, though in the office there, and vice versa, the activities of the employees in the head office are intimately connected with the activities of the company at the mines where coal is produced dressed and made marketable by some process there. The company has its own independent standing orders possibly under the Standing Orders Act, 1946, to govern the activities of its employees at the mines. It was not clear whether those standing orders have also been settled under the State Act. It is stated that those were settled under the Central Act, namely, Standing Orders Act,is thus clear that unless there is a notification by the Provincial government bringing into force all or any of the provisions of the central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, in particular industry or in particular area, rest of the provisions will not apply to that industry. Such notification was issued by the Provincial Government of the Central Provinces and Berar on 20 November,is pointed out that whenever an objection is taken to the jurisdiction of a tribunal, it is advisable that that question should be decided by giving reasons and not merely pronounce its ruling without reasons. We find there is sufficient force in this complaint and the tribunals should be well advised to bear in mind that whenever any objection to the jurisdiction of the tribunal is raised by one party or the other and the tribunal decides that question as a preliminary issue, which is generally done, the finding as to the jurisdiction or want of it must be followed by reasons. If the tribunal finds it has that Jurisdiction, it will proceed with the matter. On the other hand, if it has no jurisdiction, it is always open to the party against whom the decision is given to challenge the finding by appropriate proceedings in higher tribunal. Even though the Assistant Commissioner of Labour ruled on 26 March, 1960, that he had jurisdiction under S. 16 of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement act, reasons were available only as an annexure to the final order passed by the Assistant commissioner of Labour on 16 August,the ambit of exclusion of an industry of mines does not include a mining industry as a whole, according to Sri Thakur, the distinction will be without any difference. If this contention is correct, then we have no doubt that the head office of thewhich is an integral part of the mining industry conducted by the company, and which according to the petitioner is excluded by the notification of the Provincial government from the provisions of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes settlement act, would automatically be excluded from the operation of thisis meant is that the list does not describe as banking industry, cement industry, coal industry, etc. ; the item mentions only the product or the activity and yet all these are described as industries which are to be declared as public utilityTHE argument was that the words "industrial dispute" used in S. 2 (a) (i) necessarily take us to the definition of "industry" in S. (2) (j) and "industrial dispute" takes us to the definition of "workman" and the definition of "workman" brings us to the definition of "industry" in S. 2 (j). Therefore, in construing the clause "an industrial dispute concerning a mine" in S. 2 (a) (i) one cannot avoid bringing in the wide definition of "industry" in S. 2 (j) and in the light of the said definition, a mine means the industry of mining and that would include the head office which exercises general supervision over the mining operations of a company thought it may be situated far away from the place where the said operations areour opinion, the interpretation that is put on S. 2 (a) (i) of the Central act in the decision of the Supreme Court must guide the interpretation to be put on the item "mines" in the notification issued by the Provincial Government under S. 1 (3) of the Central provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act. It must, therefore, be held that what is excluded from the operation of the provisions of the Act are no doubt operations connected with an industry but those operations only which are connected with the industry of mining or operations in the mine or excavation in the mine and not other operations or activities which govern a much larger area if the item were "mining industry" as aWE are, therefore, asked by the learned counsel for the respondent to hold that, in view of the notification of the Provincial Government excluding not the mining industry but only the industry in mines; it is not possible to construe the notification as excluding the head office which is connected with the mining industry of theand, therefore, must be held as an employment in the industry governed by the Act. It has also to be observed that the notification applied to all the industries except four which are excluded in the items given in the notification. Thus all the activities in the mining industry of the petitioner including the head office, which is an integral part of the industry, are within the Act but the activities in the mine or actual mining operations are alone excluded from the provisions of the Act.It has been noticed in several decisions of this Court and other Courts that the word "industry", either in the State Act or in the Central Act, is very wide and it includes any business, trade, manufacturing or mining undertaking or calling of employers, or any calling, service employment, handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation of employees, and any branch of an industry or a group ofwould have been considerable force in this submission were it not for the fact that the head office is not an isolated office of theThe work done in the head office is an integral part of the business carried on by thewhich has undertaken mining as its business. Now, the undertaking, or the work of producing coal or winning coal, putting it in market for sale and supply to the customers is obviously an industry within the meaning of S. 2 (14) of the Central provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act. The work done by the employees, in the head office of such an undertaking, is a part and parcel of the industrial activity carried on by theIn fact, the petitioner has not disputed that the work done in the head office is intimately connected with its mining undertaking in as much as it books orders for supply of coal, distributes orders and sees that the orders are complied with by the despatch of goods from its coal mines. If that be the case and the nature of the activity carried on at the head office, it cannot be disputed that respondent 3 and other employees are engaged in an industry. We, therefore, hold that respondent 3 must be considered to be an employee engaged in an industry carried on by theand the mere fact that respondent 3 is employed in the head office will not avail the petitioner to contend that it is not governed by the provisions of the central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlementlong, therefore, as the action taken against respondent 3 is not in contravention of the provisions of the Act or in contravention of the standing order framed under the Act, it cannot be said that S. 16 (3) is violated by the petitioner. It is an admitted position that there are no standing orders framed governing the employment of personnel in the head office of theTherefore, no question of violation of the standing orders or the action being contrary to the standing orders would arise. To that extent the observations of the Assistant labour Commissioner in Para. 20 of the order are not tenable in view of the decisions of theled that every termination of service is not retrenchment unless retrenchment is made because the employer considers the labour force to be surplus and the retrenchment is brought about to reduce the quantum of labourit is difficult to accept this contention. The Shops and establishments Act does not provide for the manner in which an order of dismissal may be brought about in respect of an employee whose conditions of service are governed by the industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Even though a dismissal may be justified, it has to be brought about by the process known to law or the conditions of service by which the parties are governed. It is not possible to accept the interpretation put on S. 23 of the Shops and establishments Act by the learned counsel for the petitioner if the contention is that there can be dismissal contrary to conditions of service provided only one months notice or one months wages in lieu thereof is given. The first condition that has to be satisfied is that the dismissal has to be according to law. For the dismissal to be according to law, the law to which reference need be made is the law by which the relations between the employer and the employee are governed in a given case and that law in this case is the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is nowthat even if an employer is entitled to dismiss an employee for misconduct, it has to be preceded by a proper enquiry and the manner of conducting that enquiry must not disregard the accepted principles of natural justice. That this is a sine qua non of taking action of dismissal against an employee is nowand reference need only be made to a few decisions.Under the circumstances it was held that the enquiry which resulted in the dismissal of the employee was violative of theprinciples of natural justice and must be quashed. We, therefore, hold that the action taken by the petitioner in dismissing respondent 3 will still have to satisfy the condition of a fair and impartial enquiry in which adequate opportunity has been given to the employee concerned before the action of dismissal or termination of his services for misconduct is taken and if that condition is not satisfied, then it cannot be said that the action taken is still within the Act to which no challenge can be made by respondent 3 under S. 16 of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes SettlementTHE petitioner has also disputed that the principles of natural justice as found by the two authorities below were not violated or at any rate they are substantially complied with. The complaint in this regard by respondent 3 was that he was not given a copy of the report made by the enquiry officer before action of dismissal was taken against him and that he was not allowed an opportunity to examine the witnesses. It is urged with reference to this complaint that respondent 3 himself admitted before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour that he had no witnesses of his own to examine; that he did not put any questions into Sri kanade; that he was offered inspection of documents produced at the enquiry; that the enquiry officer had asked him to take notes and not to make copies of the documents; that he did not take notes; that he had not himself submitted a list of documents to be submitted or produced at the enquiry. In view of these admissions at p. 147 of the paper book it is urged that the complaint made in Para. 9 of the application before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour was really unfounded.(39) IT is not seriously disputed now that a copy of the enquiry officers findings was not furnished to respondent 3, though it was suggested in the written statement before the Assistant commissioner of Labour that such a copy was supplied. We have, therefore, to see whether the petitioner has established that it had sufficiently complied with the principles of natural justice in the conduct of the enquiry and in taking action of dismissal against respondent 3. The gravamen of the charge against respondent 3 was, firstly, that he had disobeyed the lawful order given by sri Kothekar on 1 July, 1959, to take some dictation or type some documents, secondly, that he refused to work and neglected his duty between 1 July, 1959 and 10 July, 1959, though he attended the office, and thirdly, that his deliberate marking of the attendance register was with a view to claim salary for those days though he did not work and this was in effect an attempt to cheat theThe defence of respondent 3 was that he had no doubt told Sri kothekar that he could not work or take dictation unless the officer of the company had asked him, because he was told by the junior partner as far back as 22 June, 1959, that his services were no longer required. Respondent 3 has categorically stated that nobody asked him to work after 1 July, 1959. The defence regarding the third charge is that, far from having any idea of claiming wages without work and, therefore, attempting to cheat the company, the sole purpose with which he had marked the attendance register was that his presence should be noticed, so that if his claims were to be settled, the authority may know that he was present in office and that he was not claiming anything by way of salary or wages for that period. We should have thought, as was rightly observed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, that the complainant in the case in respect of the first charge was Sri Kothekar. Similarly, the best person to refuse the statement of respondent 3, that he had reasonable ground to feel that his services were terminated by the talk between Sri Sunderlal and himself on 22 June, 1959, would be Sri Sunderlal himself. By a curious process of reasoning therest content with having Sri Kanade, personnel officer, make a statement or dictate a statement and answered some queries by the enquiry officer to prove the allegations in the charges issued to respondent 3. When respondent 3 was disputing that he had disobeyed his order and was contenting that he was given to understand that his services were dispensed with effect from 1 July, 1959, it is difficult to see how the company expected to establish the charge without examining Sri Kothekar or Sri sunderlal, junior partner. Apart from this lacuna in substantiating the charge on the principal count, respondent 3 had expressly stated in his written statement, dated 19 July, 1959, that he wanted certain witnesses whose names were given in the list to beIt is undoubtedly true that all these persons were either employers or their employees and none of them could be produced by respondent 3. Yet the enquiry officer took the view that there was no question of summoning any witnesses and he has justified this action on his view that the manner in which the list was headed as the list of witnesses given under protest made the whole prayer ridiculous. It would appear to be the view of the enquiry officer that such procedure was unknown and, therefore, respondent 3 was not entitled to have anybody produced forHere again we fail to see how the least that could be done to ensure fairness in the enquiry by the enquiry officer, namely, by producing before him Sri Kothekar or the junior partner, for being questioned by respondent 3 to elicit answers, was not appreciated by the enquiry officer. Respondent 3 has been denied this opportunity which he could avail to show that he had never any intention of disobeying Sri Kothekar, that if he declined to work it was under the bona fide impression that his services were terminated and also to show that his talk with Sri sunderlal was such as to lead to an inference that respondent 3s services were no longer required after 1 July, 1959. Such admissions as have been made by Sri Kanade in reply to the questions themselves show that a talk did take place between the junior partner and respondent 3 and if that talk related to respondent 3s voluntary resigning subject of course to some compensation which was accepted by respondent 3, it is not possible to hold that respondent 3 was labouring under any hallucination that his services were terminated with effect from 1 July, 1959. In this connexion it is contended that in his application before the State industrial court respondent 3 had stated that his services were terminated from 22 June, 1959. It is not possible to read this meaning in the statement. In that application respondent 3 has nowhere stated that he considered that his services were terminated with effect from 22 June, 1959. In fact his conduct in continuing in service and doing the work till 30 June, 1959, must necessarily show that the impression which respondent 3 carried was that his services were to be terminated from 1 July, 1959, as a result of the talk with the junior partner on 22 June, 1959. We have not been shown any statement of respondent 3 anywhere that he considered that his services were terminated with effect from 22 June, 1959. Similarly, with respect to the second charge, there is no evidence whatever to show that respondent 3 was in fact given any work and that he refused to do that work, and yet the enquiry officer came to the conclusion that respondent 3 was guilty of that charge also. Similarly, with respect to the third charge, it is difficult to see how respondent 3 could be charged with any criminal intent to deceive the company merely because respondent 3 made entries about his presence in the attendance register. It seems to us that thewas persuaded to take this view of the act of respondent 3 in marking his presence because of certain impressions of the personnel officer. The personnel officer has stated that in his opinion under the provisions of the Shops and Establishments Act the moment the employees make entries in the register the employer is compelled under the law to pay their wages. We asked the learned counsel to show any provision of the Act or any other law which creates such a legal obligation to pay an employee even though no work is down merely because he has made his signature in the attendance register. In this aspect of the matter, in our opinion, the finding of the two authorities below, that far from there being any criminal intent on the part of respondent 3 to claim wages and cheat the company, the object of respondent 3 may only be to show that he was physically present in the office so that if the employer intended to square up the matter regarding compensation which he expected may be settled, cannot be challenged. In this connexion reference may also be usefully made to the statements which respondent 3 submitted on 30 June, 1959, to the junior partner and another on 10 July, 1959, to the managing director claiming certain amount of compensation payable to him. In making such a claim he has not claimed anything after 1 July, 1959 and he has calculated the wages paid up to 30 June, 1959. It is also established on record that respondent 3 was working in the office till 30 June, 1959. In view of these circumstance and facts patent on record, it is difficult to see how the enquiry officer could have come to the conclusion that respondent 3 was entertaining criminal intent to cheat the company in making entries about his presence in the attendance register. We, therefore, hold agreeing with the two authorities below that the manner in which the enquiry was conducted has clearly violated theand by now universally recognized principles of natural justice. We fail to see why respondent 3 should not have been given a copy of the findings of the enquiry officer before the drastic action of dismissal was taken by the employer in this case. We may also mention that the enquiry officer was persuaded to accept on record the statements alleged to be prepared one by Sri Kothekar and another by Sri Joshi. Copies of these statements were not made available to respondent 3 as they mere filed on the last date of the enquiry, i. e. , on 23 July, 1959. Use has been made of these statements by the enquiry officer in coming to the conclusion that Sri Kothekar did issue a lawful order which was disobeyed by respondentonce the petitioner takes the position that there may be defects in the enquiry and leaves it to the tribunal to adjudge the validity of its action, the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal at once enlarges and the tribunal also constitutes itself into a tribunal to adjudge, as a tribunal of fact, whether there was enough material and justification for the action taken against a particular employee. That there is such power in the industrial tribunal is now authoritatively decided by the pronouncement of the supreme Court to which reference may beREFERENCE in the above case to the decision of Indian Iron and Steel Company case [1958I l. L. J. 260 (S. C.)] (vide supra) is also opposite in the instantIN the instant case, therefore, the jurisdiction of the industrial authorities could not be seriously disputed in view of their finding that the domestic enquiry was vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice and a further finding of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour that the circumstances in which thenotice came to be issued was not a bona fide action on the part of the petitioner. If the industrial tribunals have come to this decision, we have no reason to feel that the decision regarding violation of the principles of natural justice is in any way erroneous. The ambit of enquiry is certainly then extended. It is then that the petitioner invited the tribunal to adjudicate on the validity or otherwise of the action actually taken by the employer. If the action is then judged on merits and the industrial tribunal came to the conclusions that the action was not justified, in our opinion, the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal to come to such a conclusion cannot be challenged in view of the pronouncement of the supreme Court already quoted. Now, in the instant case it has been found that there was no occasion for issuance of a lawful order and respondent 3 disobeying it because respondent 3 was genuinely under the impression that his services were terminated as a result of the talk with the junior partner on 22 June, 1959. There was no occasion for disobeying the order after 1 July, 1959 till 10 July, 1959, because nobody gave him work. A stenographer cannot work unless work is entrusted to him such as dictation or typing. The third charge levelled, i. e. , an attempt to cheat the company which, as we have shown above, could not possibly be levelled when respondent 3 had disclaimed and right to wages or salary for the period from 1 July, 1959 to 10 July, 1959, when he had marked his attendance. Marking of attendance also showed that respondent 3 wanted to attend the office and be present in case the employers decided to settle the matter regarding compensation. The fact that he had applied for leave of absence for sickness or for some other work does not negative his contention that he considered himself as no longer on duty because of the talk between him and the junior partner. Even assuming that the impression was erroneous, it is insufficient to charge responded 3 with any criminal intent or with deliberate act of violation of his duty or disobeying of a lawful order. We, therefore, do not see how the findings of the tribunal on merits also can be challenged by the petitioner in the instant case. They are findings of fact and if the tribunals have come to those findings in legitimate exercise of powers, the jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked in challenging those findings because a different view may possibly be taken. Even assuming that there is scope for a difference of opening as to the view to be taken about the action taken, this is not the forum in which the petitioner can agitate the findings of the two industrial tribunals. We, therefore, hold that the industrial courts below cannot be said to have exceeded their jurisdiction in coming to the conclusion that there was no justification for the petitioner to pass the order dated 31 July, 1939, dismissing respondent 3 from service for the alleged misconduct attributed to him.(45) IN view of these conclusions there is no scope for interference with the orders of the two authorities below. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, instead of ordering reinstatement, has only directed compensation to be paid to respondent 3. No arguments were addressed as to the quantum of compensation or the basis on which it was to be paid.