Ramachandra Ayyar, C.J.
1. This appeal, which is directed against the judgment of Balakrishna Ayyar, J., concerns the propriety of an award directing reinstatement of two workers, Manickam and Kuppuawami, by the management of the Royal Printing Works, the appellant before us. Mr. N. Panchapakesa Ayyar learned Counsel for the appellant, very fairly conceded that the order of dismissal passed by the management on Manickam in October 1957 could not be supported and that the order of the industrial tribunal directing reinstatement cannot be assailed.
2. What then remains for consideration is the propriety of the order of the industrial tribunal directing the reinstatement of Kuppuswami, the head of the Job composing department. Balakrishna Ayyar, J., was of the view that the three charges laid by the management against the concerned worker were not specific and that therefore the punishment meted out on those charges could not be sustained. The charges laid against Kuppuswami were:
(1) While printing the hall tickets for Intermediate and Pre-University Examination, you have printed the conditions relating to thePre-University Course in Inter-mediate hall tickets.
(2) Tabulated results forms of the university (500 copies) instead of printing on one side, you have printed on both sides without getting the approval inspite of clear instructions.'
(3) Udipi Hotel-cheque covering letter-while the heading is as Udipi Hotel, you have printed at the bottom of the same as state's Hotel, without proper strike order.
3. It will be seen that the first two of the above charges cannot be solely laid against the worker. Balakrishna Ayyar, J., refers in detail to the procedure adopted by the management in any job work entrusted to them. That is as follows:
4. On receiving the order from the customer, the clerk in charge of the work, entrusts it to Kuppuswami, who in turn would direct the compositor to compose the type. Thereupon, the composed matter is printed on what is called ' rough correction proof.' The proof is sent to an examiner. After the examiner carries out the necessary corrections, Kuppuswami would get it back. After incorporating the corrections in the types, a clean proof would be prepared. The clean proof would then be forwarded to the person who placed the order and after he approves of it, a third proof is taken, which is called 'the strike proof.' That again will be sent to the examiner, and after incorporating any further corrections he might make therein in the types composed the strike order will be issued. Printing takes place only thereafter. Charge (1) framed against Kuppuswami is in substance a charge against the examiner. In answer to the charge, Kuppuswami stated that the proprietor in the instant case after seeing the first proof said that no corrections were necessary, and that he could proceed with the printing. The proof was also compared by the manager before the strike order was given. When the printing wasprogressing half-way, the university authorities had also approved of the proof. From these it will follow that Kuppuswami was not responsible for the mistake. Charge (1) does not contain in it anything to suggest that there was any defect in composing. On the other band, it proceeds as if Kuppuswami was responsible for the final printing which depended (?) on the work done by the examiner. Having regard to the fact that it was not Kuppuswami that corrected the proof, and the proof, although it might have been incorrect, was approved of not merely by the proprietor, bat by the management and the customer, the charge of negligence cannot be laid on Kuppuswami. It follows from the above that charge (1) could not possibly be sustained.
5. The same criticism can be made about charge (2). It is unnecessary now to consider whether charge (3) has been made out or not. Admittedly, the punishment meted out by the management on Kuppuswami was a consolidated one, on the footing that all the three charges have been proved. When once it is seen that two of the charges could not be validly unstained against the worker, it would follow that the punishment cannot be sustained.
6. Mr. Panchapakesa Ayyar invites oar attention to a certain passage in the evidence of Kappuswami before the management to show that a particular matter which had to be printed in red ink was not so printed. Learned counsel argued that the worker was guilty of disobedience. It will be seen that none of the three charges set out above contain anything in regard to the disobedience of the worker. It is therefore unnecessary to consider whether that charge has been made out or not.
7. In the result, we agree with the Judgment of Balakrishna Ayyar, J., and dismiss this appeal with costs.