# WORKMEN OF MOTIPUR SUGAR FACTORY (PRIVATE) . A LIMITED v. MOTIPUR SUGAR FACTORY - **Citation:** [1965] 3 S.C.R. 588 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1965-03-30 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 108 of 1964 - **Bench:** P. B. Gajendragadkar, C J:. K. N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah, V. Ramaswami - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/workmen-of-motipur-sugar-factory-private-a-limited-v-motipur-sugar-factory-3517 - **Pages:** 16 ## Headnote B Industrial Disputes-Discharge of workmen on account of fJOslow-Reference as to whether discharge justified-Tribunal, if could decide go-slow-No enquir11 before discharge-If discharf}e could be justified before Tribunal. The workers of the respondent started a go-slow in its sugar factory. Therefore, the respondent issued a general notice to those wo~kmen and individually to each workman notifving that unless he recorded his willingness to discharge his duties faithfully and diligently so as to give a certain minimum output, he will be no longer employed; and that he must record his willingness in the office by a certain time, failing which he shall stand discharged from the service of the respondent without any further notice. Because the appellrnts. who were 119 of such workmen, failed to record their willingness, the respondent issued a notice discharging their services. The respondent held no enquiry as required by the Standing Orders before dispensing .,;;th the services of the appellants. A general strike followed resulting in a joint application by both the parties to the Government and the Government referred the question to the Tribunal, whether the dischar;ie of the workmen was justified. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was go-slow during the period, and consequently held that the discharge of the workmen was .fully justified. In appeal by Special Leave the appellant contended that (i) all that the Tribunal was concerned with was to decide whether the discharge of the workmen for not giving an undertaking was justified or not, and that it was no part of the duty of the Tribunal to decide whether the~e was go-<;Jow which would justify the order of discharge; (ii) Since the respondent held no enquiry as required by the Standing Orders, it could not justify the discharge before the Tribunal and (iii) the finding of the Ttibunal that go-slow had been proved was perverse and the Tribunal had ignored relevant evidence in coming to the concluiion. HELD: The contentions must le rejected. (i) Taking 'into account the wide terms of reference, the manner in which it was understood before the Tribunal, and the fact that it must be read alongwith the two notices, particularly because it was made soon thereafter at the joint application of the parties, the Tribunal was entitled to go into the real dispute between the parties, namely whether the discharge was justified on the ground that there was misconduct in the form of go-slow by the workmen concerned. [596D] (ii) No distinction can be made between cases when the domestic enquiry is invalid and those where no enqu.iry has in fact been held. This Court has consistently held that if the domestic enquiry is irregular, invalid or improper, the Tribunal may give an opportunity 588 0 D E ., G B WORKMEN v. MOTIPUR FACTORY (Wanchoo, J.) 589 A to the employer to prove his case and in doing so the Tribunal tries the merits itself. [598A-C] ## Text _Characters 0–39,758 of 48,579. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39758 for what follows._ WORKMEN OF MOTIPUR SUGAR FACTORY (PRIVATE) . A LIMITED v. MOTIPUR SUGAR FACTORY March 30, 1965 (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C J:. K. N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.J B Industrial Disputes-Discharge of workmen on account of fJOslow-Reference as to whether discharge justified-Tribunal, if could decide go-slow-No enquir11 before discharge-If discharf}e could be justified before Tribunal. The workers of the respondent started a go-slow in its sugar factory. Therefore, the respondent issued a general notice to those wo~kmen and individually to each workman notifving that unless he recorded his willingness to discharge his duties faithfully and diligently so as to give a certain minimum output, he will be no longer employed; and that he must record his willingness in the office by a certain time, failing which he shall stand discharged from the service of the respondent without any further notice. Because the appellrnts. who were 119 of such workmen, failed to record their willingness, the respondent issued a notice discharging their services. The respondent held no enquiry as required by the Standing Orders before dispensing .,;;th the services of the appellants. A general strike followed resulting in a joint application by both the parties to the Government and the Government referred the question to the Tribunal, whether the dischar;ie of the workmen was justified. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was go-slow during the period, and consequently held that the discharge of the workmen was .fully justified. In appeal by Special Leave the appellant contended that (i) all that the Tribunal was concerned with was to decide whether the discharge of the workmen for not giving an undertaking was justified or not, and that it was no part of the duty of the Tribunal to decide whether the~e was go-<;Jow which would justify the order of discharge; (ii) Since the respondent held no enquiry as required by the Standing Orders, it could not justify the discharge before the Tribunal and (iii) the finding of the Ttibunal that go-slow had been proved was perverse and the Tribunal had ignored relevant evidence in coming to the concluiion. HELD: The contentions must le rejected. (i) Taking 'into account the wide terms of reference, the manner in which it was understood before the Tribunal, and the fact that it must be read alongwith the two notices, particularly because it was made soon thereafter at the joint application of the parties, the Tribunal was entitled to go into the real dispute between the parties, namely whether the discharge was justified on the ground that there was misconduct in the form of go-slow by the workmen concerned. [596D] (ii) No distinction can be made between cases when the domestic enquiry is invalid and those where no enqu.iry has in fact been held. This Court has consistently held that if the domestic enquiry is irregular, invalid or improper, the Tribunal may give an opportunity 588 0 D E ., G B WORKMEN v. MOTIPUR FACTORY (Wanchoo, J.) 589 A to the employer to prove his case and in doing so the Tribunal tries the merits itself. [598A-C] Case law referred to. (iii) As the case involved the discharge of 119 workmen, this Court went into the evidence, and the evidence showed that the decision of the Tribunal was not wrong that there was go-slow and B that the discharge was fully justified, [598E] c D E F G H CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 108 of 1964. Appeal by special leave from the Award d;ited May 11, 1962, of the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, Patna in Reference No. 4 of 1961. Ranen Roy, Jai Krishan, G. S. Chatterjee, E. Udayarathnam for A. K. Nag, for the appellants. Niren De, Addi. Solicitor-General and Naunit Lal, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar. · It relates to the discharge of 119 workmen of the respondent who were employed as cane carrier mazdoors or as cane carrier supervisors or jamadars. All these were seasonal workmen. It is necessary to set out in some detail the circumstances leading to the discharge. The respondent is a sugar factory and the crushing season starts usually in the frrst half of November each year. We are concerned in the present appeal with November and December 1960. It appears that from the season 1956-57, the respondent introduced an incentive bonus scheme in the factory. The scheme continued thereafter froin season to season with certain changes. It also appears that in the beginning of each season, the respondent used to put forward the incentive bonus scheme and consult the workmen. The same thing was done when the season 1960-61 was about to start in November 1960. But the scheme for this season proposed by the respondent contained certain changes which were apparently not acceptable to the workmen. One of the features in the scheme was that the crushing of sugar cane per day should be 32,000 maunds. The general secretary of the union of the workmen suggested certain alterations for the consideration of the respondent on November 7, 1960," and one of the main alterations suggested was that the norm for per day's crushing should be 125,000 maunds of cane and thereafter incentive bonus should be given at a certain rate. No agreement seems to have reached on the incentive bonus scheme, and the complaint of the respondent was that the secretary incited the workmen to go slow in consequence of the change in the scheme. Consequently mild go-slow in the can: carrier department which is the basic department in a sugar mill began from the very start of the season on November 10, 1960. Thu L/P(N)4SCI 090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1965) 3 s.c.R. respondent's case further was that on. November 27, 1960, the workmen -in the cane carrier department started in combination with one another to go-slow deliberately and wilfully and in a planned manner and thus reduced the average daily crushing to 26,000 maul)ds cane which was much less than the average crushing in previous seasons. This conduct of the workmen .was said to be highly prejudicial to the respondent and besides being technically unsafe, had brought into existence an acute shortage in the fuel position which might have resulted in the complete stoppage of the mill and a major breakdown of the machinery. When the position became serious the respondent issued a general notice on December 15, 1960 inviting the attention of the workmen concerned to this state of affairs which had been continuing of any rate since November 27, 1960. This notice was in the following terms: - "At the instigation of Shri J. Krishna, the General Secretary A B c D of your Union, you since the very beginning of this season, have been failing in your duty to ensure adequate and regular loading of the ~ne carrier, and with effect from the 27th November, 1960, you, in combination with each other, have deliberately and wilfully resorted to a clear 'go-slow' tactics, a fact openly a1lmitted by the above-named General Secret2ry of your Union in presence of the Labour Superintendent and Labour Officer Muzzffarpur, in course of discussions · E held on the subject in the office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner on the 6th December, 1960. You have deliberately reduced the average daily crushing to more or less 20,000 maunds out of which more than 2,000 maunds is due to the newly introduced device of direct feeding of the cane carrier by cane carts weighed during nights and not attributable to any effort on your part. Thus the actual crushing given by you is practically something between 23,000 and 24,000 maunds only which is highly uneconomical and technically unsafe for this factory with the installed crushing capacity of more than 1,200 tons a day. "About 14,000 bales of extra bagasse kept in stock as re- ,erve have already been consumed in !he past 12 days or so and now the factory is faced with a situation when at any mom1mt "its boilers may go out of steam for want of bagasse-fuel leading to an abrupt stopr-age of the mills and finally resulting into a major breakdown of machineries. "It is therefore hereby notified that unless you voluntarily record your willingness individually. to discharge your duties faithfuJly ond diligentiy by feeding the cane currier so as to give a minimum average daily crush of 32,000 maunds, exclud111g •toppages other than those F G H A B c D E F G 1l WORKMEN v. MOTIPUR FACTORY (Wano/too, J.) 591 due to overloading or underloading of.the cane carrier, you will be considered to be no longer employed by the company. You must record your willingness in the office of the Factory Manager on or before 4 P.M. of Saturday the 17th December, 1960, failing which you shall stand discharged from the service of the company without any further notice with effect from 18-12-1960 and your place will be filled by recruiting other labour to man the cane carrier station." This notice was put on the notice-board along with translations in Hindi and Urdu and it was also sent individually to the workmen in cane carrier department. A copy was also sent to the Secretary of the union with the workmen concerned to submit their willingness as desired by the respondent in the notice in ques- . tion either individually or even collectively through the union. The secretary of the union replied to this notice on the same day and said that it was "full of malicious!y false and mischievous statements". The secretary also denied that the workmen had adopted go-slow tactics or that he had advised the workmen to adopt such tactics. Finally the secretary said that it was simply fantastic to ask a worker to give an undertaking to crush at least 32,000 maunds per day and if the service of any workman was terminated on his not giving the undertaking, the responsibility would be that of the respondent itself. The respondent's case was that three workmen gave undertakings as required in the notice while the rest .did not. Thereafter the situation in the factory deteriorated and the workmen grew more and more unruly and even started entering the factory without taking their attendance token. In consequence of this attitude of the workmen, the respondent issueJ a notice at 5 p.m. on December 17, 1960 which was in the following terms: "The following workers of the cane carrier srnt1011 who failed to record their willingness in factory manager's office by 4 p.m. this day the 17th December, 1960, to work faithfully and diligently in accordance with the management's notice dated 15-12-1960, stand discharged from the company's service and their mmes have been struck off the rolls with effect from 18th December 1960. From now on, the workers concerned have forfeited their right to go to and occupy their former place of work and any action contrary to this on their part will make them liable to prosecution for crimim1 I trespass. "Their final account will be ready for payment by 4 p.m. on the 19th December 1960, when, or wherrnfter, they may present themselves at the company\ Office fo;- receiving payment of their V\':lges and other (l\1es. if any. during working hours", and then mentions the names of 119 workmen of the cane carriers Jeparnnent. 592 SUPRlllJ.IE COURT REPORTS (1965] 3 8.0.R. Thus the services of the workmen concerned stood discharged from A December 18, 1960 under this notice. This was followed by a general strike in pursuance of the notice served on the respondent by the union on December 17, 1960. The strike continued upto / December 22, 1960 when as a result of an agreement it was decided that the case of the discharged workmen and the question of wages for the strike period be referred to adjudication. ConseB quently a joint application by both parties was made to Government on December 21, 1960. The Government then made a reference of the following two questions to the tribunal on January 25, 1961 :- !. Whether the discharge of workmen mentioned in the Appendix was justified. If not, whether they should be re-instated and/ or they are entitled to any other relief? c 2. Whether the workmen be paid wages for thi;_ period 16-00 hrs. on December 18, 1960 to 8-00 hours on December 22, 1960? D It may be mentioned that the respondent had held no enquiry aJ required by the standing Orders before dispensing with the services of the workmen concerned. Therefore, when the matter went before the tribunal, tlie question that was tried was whether there was .go-slow between November 27, 1960 and December 15, 1960. The respondent led evidence, which was mainly documentary and based on the past pedormance of the factory to show that there was in fact go-slow by the workmen. concerned during this period. The appellants on the other hand also relying on the record of the respondent tried to prove that the cane carrier department had been giving normal work in accordance with what had happened in the past in connection with cane crushing. That is how the tribunal considered the question on the basis of the relevant statistics supplied by both parties and also oral evidence whether there was go-slow during this period or not. After considering all the evidence it came to the conclusion that there was goslow during this period. Consequently it held that the discharge of the workmen was fully justified. It therefore answered the first question referred to it in favour of the respondent. The Becond question with.respect to wages for the strike period was not pressed on behalf of the appellants and was therefore decided against them. Thereafter the appellants came to this Court and obtained special leave ; and that is how the matter has come up before us. We are concerned in the present appeal only with the first question which was referred to the tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised three main contentions before us in· support of the appeal. In the first place it is contended that the tribunal misdirected itself as to the scope of the reference and that all that the tribunal was concerned with was to decide whether the discharge of the workmen for not giving an undertaking was justified E F G B A B c D E , G H WORKMEN v. HOTIPUR FACTORY (Wanchoo, J.) 598 or not. and that it was no part of the duty of the tribunal to decide whether there was go-slow between the relevant dates which would justify the order of discharge. Secondly, it is urged that the respondent had given no charge-sheets to the workmen concerned and had held no enquiry as required by the Standing Orders. Therefore, it was not open to the respondent to justify the discharge before the tribunal, and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to go into the merits of the question relating to go-slow. Lastly it is urged that the finding of the tribunal that go-slow had been proved was perverse and the tribunal had ignored relevant evidence in coming to that conclusion. We shall deal with these contentions seriatlm. Re. (J). We have already set out the relevant term of reference and it will be seen that it is wide and general in terms and asks the tribunal to decide whether the discharge of the workmen concerned was justified or not. It does not mention the grounds on which the. disc ha •ge was based and it is for the tribunal to investigate the grounds and decide whether those grounds justify discharge or not. So if the tribunal finds that the discharge was due to the use of go-slow tactics by the workmen concerned it will be entitled to investigate the question whether the use of go-slow tactics by the workmen had been proved or not. But the argument on behalf of the appellants is that the notice of December 17 gives the reason for the discharge and the tribunal is confined only to that notice and has to consider whether the reason given in that notice for discharge is justified. We have already set out that notice and it certainly says that the workmen mentioned at the foot of the notice had failed to record their will· ingness to work faithfully and diligently in accordance with the respondent's r.otice of December 15, 1960, and therefore they stood discharged from the respondent's services and their names had been struck off the rolls from December 18, 1960. So it is argued that the reason for the discharge of the workmen concerned was not go-slow but their failure to record their willingness to work faithfully and diligently. The tribunal had therefore to see whether this reason for the discharge of the workmen was justifiable. and that it had no jurisdiction to go beyond this and to investigate the question of go-slow. We are of opinion that there is no force in this argument. Apart from the question that both parties before the tribunal went into the question of go-slow and voluminous evidence was led from both sides either to prove that there was go-slow or to disprove the same, it appears to us that it would be taking much too technical a view to hold that the discharge was due merely to the failure of the workmen to give the undertaking and that the go-slow had nothing to do with the discharge. We are of opinion that the two notices o.f December 15 and December 17 have to be read together and it may be pointed out that the notice of December 17th does refer to the earlier notice of December 15th. If we read the two 594 SuPR~~ME COURT REPORTS [1965) 3 s.c.R· notices together, there can be in our opinion be no doubt that A though the discharge is worded as if it was due to the failure to !\>cord their willingness to work faithfully and diligently, it was really due to the workmen concerned using go-slow tactics. Notice of Dec-ember 15, is in two parts. The first part sets out the facts and states what the workmen had been doing from the very beginning of the season and particularly from November 27, 1960. It il states that on the instigation of the secretary of the union, the work· men had been failing in their duty to ensure adequate and regular loading of the cane carrier from the very beginning of the season. It further charges that with effect from November 27 they had in combination with one another deliberately and wilfully resorted t<) a clear go-slow, a fact said to have been openly admitted by the C secretary in the presence of the Labour Superintendent and Labour Officer, Muzaffarpur, in course of discussions held in the office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner on December 6,' 1960. The notice then says that the average daily crushing is 26,000 maunds · out of which more .han 2,000 was due to the newly introduced device of direct feeding of the cane carrier by cane carts weighed JJ , during nights and not attributable to any effort on the workmen's parts; thus the actual crushing had been practically reduced to wmething between 23,000 to 24,000 maunds per day, which was highly uneconomical and technically unsafe for the factory which had an installed crushing capacity of more than 1,200 tons a day i.e. over 32,000 maunds a day. The notice also says that about E 14.000 bales of extra bagasse kept in stock as reserve and already been consumed in the last twelve days and the factory was faced wit.h a situation when at any moment its boilers might go out of ,team for want of bagasse-fuel'Jeading to an abrupt stopJ?age of the mill and finally resulting in a major break-down of machinery. These facts which were given in the first part of the notice dated December 15, 1960 really show the charge which the respondent was making against the workmen concerned. I;Iaving made this charge of go-slow in the manner indicated in tlie first part of the notice (and it may be mentioned that this notice was F not only put on the notice-board but was given to each workmen G individually), the respondent then indicated in the second part what action it intended to take. In this part the respondent told the workmen concerned that unless they voluntarily recorded their willingness individually to discharge their duties faithfully and dili· gently by feeding the cane carrier so as to give a minimum average daily crush of 32,000 maunds, excluding stoppages other than H those .due to over-loading or under-loading of the cane carrier, they would be considered to be no longer employed by the respondent. They were given time up to 4 p.m. on December 17, 1960 to record their willingness failing which they would stand discharged from the respondent's service without any further notice with effect from December 18, 1960. The second part of the notice thus jndicated to the workmen concerned how much they had to crush every A B c D E F G H day to avoid the charge of go-slow. It further ind_icatcd that the respondent was prepared to let bygones be bygones 1f the workmen concerned were preparl!d to give an undertaking in the n1anner desired. Assuming that this course adopted by the respondent was unjust and even improper. reading of the two parts of the notice of December 15. 1960 shows that in the opinion of the res· pondent was the normal cane crushing per day and what was the charge of the respnndent against the workmen concerned in the matter of go-slow and what the respondent was prepared to accept if i11e workmen were agreeable to the claim of the respondent. It is clear therefore from the notice which was given on December IS, 196'.l that the respondent thought that 32,000 maunds should be the normal crnsh every day excluding stoppages other than those due to over-loading or under-loading of the cane carrier. It also charged the workmen with producing much less than this for the. peiiod from November 27, 1960 to December IS, 1960, though it was prepared to l st bygones be bygones, provided the workmen in future undertook to give normal production. It is in the background of this charge contained in the notice of December lS, 1960 that we have to read the notice of December 17, 1960. That notice says that the workmen had failed to record their willingness to work faithfully and diligently in accordance with the notice of December IS. 1950 and therefore they stood discharged, meaning therel:Jy that the respondent was charging the· workmen with goslow as indicated in the notice of December 15, 1960 and that as they were not prepared to give normal production even in future they were being discharged. Therefore, though in form the notice of December 17, .1960 reads as ;f the workmen were being discharged for not giving the undertaking as desired. the real basis of the notice of discharge of December 17, 1960 is the use of goslow which had already been indicated in the notice of December 1 S given to each workman individually also. The reference was made on the joint application of both parties. If all that the workmen desired in their joint application for reference was that it should only be considered whether the discharge of the work.men for refusing to give an undertaking was justified, there was nothing to prevent the workmen to insist that in the joint application this matter should be specifically mentioned. Tn the joint a·pplication the first matter which was specified was in these lerms: "Whether the discharge of workmen mentioned in the appendix was justified? If not, whether they should be reinstated and I or they are entitled to any other relief?" Now if all that was desired was that the tribunal should go into the ·question whether the discharge of the wor!cmen on the ground that they had failed to give the undertaking should be investigated. it· woulrl have been easy to put this term only in the reference in the joint aoolic~tion thus; "Whether the discharges of the workmen mentioned in the appendix on the 596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985] 3 S.C,R. ground of their failure to give an undertaking was justified?" The A very fact that the matter specified as in dispute was put in the wide words already quoted above shows that the parties did not wish to confine their dispute only to the question whether the discharge on the ground of failure to give an undertaking was justified. Further we have already indicated that both parties understood the dispute to be whether gc;-slow was justified or not and B that is why voluminous evidence was led before the tribunal. The wide terms in which the reference was made along with the notice of December 17th read with the notice of December 15th leave no doubt in our mind that the reference included investigation of any cause which might have led to the discharge of the workinen. There is no doubt in this case that even though notice of discharge was 0 pharsed as if the discharge was being made on account of the failure to give an undertaking the real reason for the discharge was that the workmen had been guilty of go-slow between November 27 and December 15 and were not prepared in spite of the respondent's giving them a chance to in;iprove to show better results. Therefore taking into account the wide terms of reference, the manner D in which it was understood before the tribunal, and the fact that it must be read along with the two notices of Der.ember 15 and 17, 1960, particularly because it was made soon thereafter at the joint application of the parties, we have no doubt that the tribunal was entitled to go into the real dispute between the parties, namely whether the discharge was justified on the ground that there was E miscon:luct in the form of go-slow by the workmen concerned between November 27, 1960 workmen therefore on this head must be rejected. Re. (II). Then we come to the question whether it was open to the F tribunal when there was no enquiry whatsoever by the respondent to hold an enquiry itself into the question of go-slow. It was urged on behalf of the appellants that not only there was no enquiry in the present case but there was no charge either. We do not agree that there was no charge by the respondent against the workmen concerned. The first part of the notice of December 15, G 1960 which was served on each individual workmen was certainly a charge by the respondent telling the workmen concerned that they were guilty of go-slow for the period between November 27 and December 15, 1960. It is true that the notice was not headed as a charge and it did not specify that an enquiry would follow, which is the usual procedure when a formal charge is given. Even H so, there can be no doubt that the workmen concerned knew what was the charge against them which was really responsible for their discharge from December 18, 1960. It is now well-settled by a number of decisions of this Court that where an employer has failed to make an enquiry before dismissing or discharging a workman it is. open to him to justify the action before the tribunal by leading all relevant evidence before it. A B c D E F G H WORKHEN v. :MOTll'UR FA.CTORY (Wanchoo, J.) 597 In such a case the employer would not have the benefit which he had in cases where domestic inquiries have been held. The entire matter would be open before the tribunal which will have jurisdiction not only to go into the limited que~tions open to a tribunal where domestic inquiry has been properly held (see Indian Iron & Steel Co. v. Their workmen(') but also to satisfy itself on the facts adduced before it by the employer whether the dismissal or discharge was justified. We may in this connection refer to MI s Sasa Musa. Sugar Works (P) Limited v. Shobrati Khan('), Phulbari Tea Estate v. Its Workmen(') and the Puniab National Bank Limited v. Its Workman(') There three cases were further considered by this court in Bharat Sugar Mills Limited. v. Shri Jai Singh('), and reference was also made to the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal in Shri Ram Swarath Sinha v. Belaund Sugar Co. (') It was pointed out that "the import effect of commission to hold an enquiry was merely this: that the tribunal would not have to consider only whether there was a prima fade case but would decide for itself on the evidence adduced whether the charges have really been made out". It is true that three of these cases, except Phulbari Tea Estate's case('), were on applications under s. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. But in principle we see no difference whether the matter comes before the tribunal for approval under s. 33 ·or on a reference under s. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In either case if the enquiry Is defective or if no enquiry has been held as required by Standing Orders, the entire case would be open before the tribunal and the. employer would have to justify on facts as well that its order of dismissal or discharge was proper. Phulbari Tea Estate's(') was on a reference under s. 10, and the same principle was applied there also, the only difference being that in that case, there was an enquiry though it was defective. A defective enquiry in our opinion stands on the same footing as no enquiry and in either case the tribunal would have jurisdiction to go into the facts and the employer would have to satisfy the tribunal that on facts the order of dismissal or discharge was proper. · If it is held that in cases where the employer dismisses his employee without holding an enquiry, the dismissal must be set asicie by the industrial tribunal only on that ground, it would inevitably mean that the employer will immediately proceed to hold the enquiry and pass an order dismissing the employee once again. In that case, another industrial dispute would arise and the employer would be entitled to rely upon the enquiry which he had held in the mean-time. This course would mean delay and on the second occasion it will entitle the employer to claim the benefit of the domestic enquiry given. On the other hand, if in such cases the employer is given an opportunity. to justify the (') [1958] S.C.R. 667. (') [1959] Supp. S.C.R. 836. (3) [1960] IS.C.R. 32 •. (') [1900] I S.C.R. 806. (') [1962J1S!S.C.R. 684. (') [1954] L.A.C. 697. '. ~Ul'Rl..:ME l'Ol!RT REPOftTS ' , [1965] 3 S.C.R. . ~ .. _· \" \ ', . ' ,impa_cncd dismissal on the merits of his case heing considered by . lite tribunal for itself a'nd that clearlywou1d be to the benefit of the c;;:pioyec: That is why this Court has consistently held that if the do,nestic enquiry. is irregular, invalid or' improper, the tribunal . may give an opportunity to the employer to prove his case and in doing so the tribunal tries the merits ·itself. This view is consistent with the approach which industrial adjudication generally adopts with a view to do justice between the parties without relying too much on technical considerations and with the object of avoiding delay in the disposal of industrial disputes. ·· Therefore, A we are satisfied that no distinction ·can be made lietween cases where the domestic enquiryis invalid and those where no enquiry has in fact been held. We must therefore reject the contention c that ·as there was no enquiry in· this case it was ncit. open to the responJcnt to justify the dis_charge before the tribunal .. Re. (iit) The question whether there was go-slow during the perio1 from November 27 to D~cember 15, 1960 is a question of fact and the tribunal has come to the conclusion that there was go-slow during this period. Ordinarily, this Court dcies not go into findings of fact recorded by a tribunal unkss there are special reasons, as. for example, where the finding is based on no evidence,-which of course is not the case here. Learned counsel for the appellants howc·;;:r urges that the finding of the tribunal that the. workmen concerned were guilty cf go-slow is perverse and that. evidence which was relevant and material has been ignored. As the case involves the discharge of as many as 119 workmen we liave decided to go broadly into the evidence to see whether the finding of the trib:mal.is patently wrong. · · · · Fqr this purpose we may· first refer to the past history of the W'lrking of the respondent factory. It appears that till this court condemned the practice of go-slow in the case of Bharat Sugar Mills('). It was not unusual in the State of Bihar for workmen to give notice of go-slow to employers as if it was a le3itimate weapon !