1. The petitioner was a clerk employed in the advertising department of the second respondent company and he was dismissed from service on 2 December 1953 after an inquiry was held with regard to certain charges that were framed against him. The substance of the charges was that the petitioner had issued or authorized the issue of a certain leaflet which was of an extremely scurrilous character and directed mainly against the general manager of the second respondent company. As a dispute was pending before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, the second respondent company could not give effect to the order of dismissal without the permission of the Tribunal for permission under Section 22 of the Act and that permission was granted by the Tribunal. The petitioner has now come on with (?) this petition challenging the Order of the Tribunal.
2. In our opinion, the order passed by the Tribunal is perfectly correct and the attempt on the part of the petitioner to draw a distinction between a misconduct committed by the petitioner in his individual capacity and a misconduct committed by him as a member of the union is entirely untenable. He was a member of the executive committee, the campaign against the second respondent company was entrusted to one Khadilkar who was the vice-president of the union, and the record shows that although the attention of the petitioner was expressly drawn by the general manager to what was happening, he at no age dissociated himself from the campaign Hurled on by Khadilkar of issuing scurrilous leaflets. The Tribunal has also pointed out that the petitioner refused to express regret or dissociate himself from the action of Khadilkar at any stage or at any time.
3. When the petition came on before us we felt that except for this particular incident the record of the petitioner has been a clean one. He has been long in service with the second respondent company and if something could be done (?) to persuade the second respondent company to take the petitioner back in service it would be the right thing because the petitioner has already suffered sufficiently by his intractable conduct. We may also point out that the second respondents have acted very fairly in this matter because they have taken back into service all those employees who also took part in this campaign but who apologised to the general manager, and the only two persons who did not do so were the petitioner and one other employee. The petitioner now at our suggestion expresses his unqualified apology to the general manager for the scurrilous pamphlets issued at the instance of the union of which he was a member. He expresses regret at what was done in the name of the union and he says that he dissociates himself from the manner in which the campaign was conducted by Khadilkar in the name of the union and Mr. Gokhale is also prepared to submit, to a dismissal of this petition.
4. In view of this we have requested Mr. Palkhiwala to impress upon the second respondents that it is very desirable that they should sympathetically consider the case of the petitioner. As we said before, he has had a long term of service, an unblemished record, and in these days it is not very easy to have employees with a long term of service and who have had a clean record. With these observations we will leave the matter to Mr. Palkhiwala to make the necessary recommendation to the second respondents.
5. No order as to costs.