Judgment MITTER, J.: These five appeals are by special leave from the judgment and order of the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab dated September 1, 1965. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant s applications under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act for grant of permission to dismiss five employees of the company. They arose in the following circumstances. 2. The appellant is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of cement with its registered office at Charkhi Dadri, District Mohindergarh. The respondents are all workmen employed by the appellant. One of them, Murari Lal Bikaneria, respondent in Appeal No. 968 of 1966 was suspended by way of punishment for four days from May 26, 1964 by the appellant on the ground of serious acts of misconduct relating to falsifying the records of the company. This was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal Punjab and the appellant s action was upheld by an award dated May 24, 1965 published in the Punjab Government Gazette on June 11, 1965. On May 27, 1964 the then Prime Minister of India expired and on receipt of the news, the appellant closed the cement factory in the general shift as a mark of respect and called a condolence meeting of the workers and staff of the factory at 3.30 p. m. on the same day. 3. According to the appellant, after the conclusion of the condolence meeting while the Works Manager of the appellant was in discussion with other officers including one Ishwar Nath, Power House and Mill House Superintendent, the respondent appeared in their midst all of a sudden and demanded that work in the entire factory should cease and all production should stop. The said Superintendent remarked that in a continuous process industry like a cement factory total production in all the shifts could not be stopped. The respondent became insolent and used insulting language to the said Superintendent. He also threatened to call the workmen on strike and stop the factory within a minute if his demand was not acceded to. The Works Manager consulted the Delhi office of the appellant over the telephone and came to learn that ether sister factories were not going to stop their plants completely and that only the work in the office and in the general shift was to be stopped and that the same procedure should be adopted by the appellant s factory. The Works Manager consulted the Delhi office of the appellant over the telephone and came to learn that ether sister factories were not going to stop their plants completely and that only the work in the office and in the general shift was to be stopped and that the same procedure should be adopted by the appellant s factory. The Works Manager called the representatives of the three unions of workers and communicated to them his decision on the basis of the advice received. Notice to this effect was put up on the notice board of the appellant on the night of May 27, 1964. On the day following when the work in the general shift was closed and work in the shift from 2 a. m. to 10 a. m. was going on, the respondent came to the factory at about 8 a. m. with a number of workers and asked the Works Manager who was then in the company of the said Superintendent about their decision regarding the closure of the continuous process units. On coming to learn from the Manager of the decision arrived at the previous night the respondent said that it was not acceptable to him or to his followers. The respondent and three other workers called upon the Works Manager to address the workers and explain their standpoint. When this was done the respondent shouted to the workers that the Works Manager was a traitor, that they should not listen to what was said by him and that they should close the factory and stop work in all the units. The respondent in company with the said other persons went to the packing section and prevailed upon the workers to desist from working. After visiting different departments he went to the boiler fireman, Banwari Lal (respondent in one of these appeals) and made him blow on the whistle three times as a signal to workmen all over the factory to leave off work. Banwari Lal blew the whistle as directed. The respondent along with other workers then picketed the time office entrance and stopped workmen from going inside to their duty at the change of shift. As a result of this, the kiln had to be stopped at 10-10 A M. and could only get re-started at 2-10 P. M. Charge sheets were issued to the respondent and others including the said Banwari Lal. As a result of this, the kiln had to be stopped at 10-10 A M. and could only get re-started at 2-10 P. M. Charge sheets were issued to the respondent and others including the said Banwari Lal. The first charge sheet to be issued was that on Banwari Lal on the 2nd June followed by that against Murari Lal and others on June 4. 4. The charge against Murari Lal in the charge-sheet dated June 4, 1964 was that he had not only misbehaved with Ishwar Nath, the Superintendent but also incited and instigated workmen to disobey the orders of the management in connection with the working of the factory on May 28, and further that he had incited the above strike during the pendency of proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal. His acts were said to be subversive of discipline and amounted to indulgence in riotous and disorderly behavior, specially during the period of his suspension when he was not supposed to enter the factory premises. 5. While Banwari Lal submitted explanation on June 3, Murari Lal delayed filing it on one ground or other e.g. asking for Hindi translation of letters, taking objection to his being addressed in his personal capacity and not as the President of the Union etc. He even threatened the Works Manager with legal action for the alleged incorrect way of addressing him. Ultimately he submitted his reply to the charge-sheet of the 4th June on July 15. He did not deny therein that he had demanded the closure of the factory but disputed that he had collected the workmen on the morning of 28th May. He admitted having asked for a complete holiday and said that the charge sheet against him of attempting closure of the entire plant and getting Banwari Lal to blow the whistle was false. He went further and charged the Special Officer of the appellant, one Kapoor, with having, distributed sweets to the workers on the day of demise of the former Prime Minister. The appellant took exception to this and submitted another charge-sheet to him for making false allegations against an officer of the company. A reply to this was submitted only on August 25. The appellant took exception to this and submitted another charge-sheet to him for making false allegations against an officer of the company. A reply to this was submitted only on August 25. On the 29th August the Works Manager enclosed copies of charge-sheets to the respondents in the five appeals and stated that as he himself was a witness to some of these incidents he was forwarding the papers for necessary action to higher authorities. 6. According to the appellant as a number of officers were in some way or other involved in the charges against the respondent and some of them might have to figure as witnesses in the enquiry it was felt proper to appoint an outsider, S. N. Bhandari, an advocate of Delhi, to conduct the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer issued notices fixing the date of the enquiry and adjourned the same from time to time, but notices of adjournment were all returned with the endorsement refused by Murari Lal and the other respondents except Banwari Lal who attended the proceedings. 7. The report of the Enquiry Officer shows that he issued a notice on 9th September to each of the workmen to whom a charge-sheet had been given informing him that the enquiry would be held on the 16th September at 10.30 a m in the general office of the factory. On September 15 he received two telegrams asking for postponement one of which was from the respondent and the other from the respondents other than Banwari Lal. By his telegram the respondent asked for postponement of the enquiry by a month on the ground of serious illness of his wife while the telegram from the other workers contained a similar request in view of the respondent s inability to take part in the enquiry. On the 16th September the other workmen including Banwari Lal appeared before the Enquiry Officer. After hearing Vidya Sagar, the Management s representative the Enquiry Officer adjourned the matter till the 25th September as he did not think that a month s postponement was called for. He sent registered letters to the employees including the respondent about his decision. The second meeting was held on the 25th September in the Directors Office of the cement factory but not one of the workmen who had been given a charge-sheet turned up at the appointed hours. He sent registered letters to the employees including the respondent about his decision. The second meeting was held on the 25th September in the Directors Office of the cement factory but not one of the workmen who had been given a charge-sheet turned up at the appointed hours. An employee of the factory was sent out to contact the nine workmen including the respondent. The respondent in this appeal and the respondents in other appeals excepting Banwari Lal refused to come on the ground that they could not participate in the enquiry before disposal of their letter of objection regarding the personnel of the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer made another attempt on the same day to go on with the proceedings and fixed 3 30 p. m. for the purpose and tried to notify the concerned workmen about it. The messenger who was sent out on this occasion reported that the respondent and the said three other workmen had refused to come. The Enquiry Officer directed that evidence should be recorded in the absence of these workmen and that if they desired to take part in the proceedings they could do so at the next meeting fixed for the 1st October. On that day workmen other than these four appeared. After recording the evidence adduced, the Enquiry Officer submitted his finding on October 17, 1964 taking the view that the respondent and the said three other workmen had behaved rudely with the manager and showed insolence to him. Murari Lal was-described as the ring leader. The Enquiry Officer found on the evidence before him that the closing of the factory by Banwari Lal blowing the whistle three times was done at the instance of Murari Lal He held Banwari Lal guilty of an act of insubordination in so acting under the direction of the respondent. Murari Lal s action was held to be all the more reprehensible because he was not supposed to enter the factory on the 27th or 28th of May when he was under suspension. According to the Enquiry Officer these four workmen had combined together to stop the working of the factory and had actually stopped certain sections of it by their coercive tactics. In the result he held that the charges against Murari Lal had been proved. According to the Enquiry Officer these four workmen had combined together to stop the working of the factory and had actually stopped certain sections of it by their coercive tactics. In the result he held that the charges against Murari Lal had been proved. He also went into the evidence with regard to the allegation of distribution of sweets by the management and found against Murari Lal. 8. The appellant had yet another grievance against the respondent in that while the above enquiry was pending, the respondent Murari Lal put in an application to the management for half a day s sick leave on September 30, 1964. This was granted by the Chief Chemist but the respondent absented himself from duty for the whole of that day. On the Head Time-keeper pointing this out to him, Murari Lal wanted to have a look at his application and on the same being produced made changes thereon unauthorisedly and initialled the same so that he could get a full day s leave on the basis of the amended application. 9. The Head Time-keeper made a report of the incident to the Manager whereupon a further charge-sheet was 25 issued on the 5th October 1964. In his reply thereto Murari Lal stated that he had got his leave application scribed by another person who had through mistake mentioned leave for half a day when he himself wanted a full day s leave. He admitted having taken the application from the custody of the Head Time-keeper and made some alteration thereon, at the same time stating that he had committed a mistake. He however, alleged that he had done so at the instance of Head Time-keeper. Not satisfied with the reply the Manager of the factory appointed S. N. Bhandari i. e., the same person as the Enquiry Officer and asked the respondent to attend thereat. Murari Lal again refused to participate in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer who recorded the statements of witnesses in support of the charges found Murari Lal guilty. The second finding of the Enquiry Officer was rendered on October 20 1964. 10. The findings of the Enquiry Officer were forwarded to the Director-Secretary along with the record of the proceedings. Murari Lal again refused to participate in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer who recorded the statements of witnesses in support of the charges found Murari Lal guilty. The second finding of the Enquiry Officer was rendered on October 20 1964. 10. The findings of the Enquiry Officer were forwarded to the Director-Secretary along with the record of the proceedings. The note by the Director-Secretary thereupon forwarded to the Works Manager shows that he had considered the report of the Enquiry Officer, had gone through the proceedings thereof and was satisfied that the charges had been brought home against the five workmen and that they should be dismissed from service. The report of the Enquiry Officer and the recommendation of the Director/Secretary were both sent to the Works Manager. By order dated 28th October 1964 the said Manager recorded that the charges proved against the respondent were of a grave nature and that considering all the circumstances of the case his dismissal from service had been decided upon. 11. As the appellant felt some doubt whether Murari Lal was a protected workman it submitted an application for permission to dismiss him under the provisions of Section 33 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Industrial Tribunal The other respondents were dismissed from service and tendered one month s wages. Applications for approval of the action taken against them were moved before the Industrial Tribunal on the same day. 12. Banwari Lal filed a reply confessing his guilt and did not take part in the proceedings. 13. The main grievance put forward in the reply of Murari Lal dated November 11, 1964 was that the appointment of an outsider as an Enquiry Officer was unprecedented and that the Enquiry Officer was biased against the workers and wanted to conclude the enquiry hastily without giving a reasonable opportunity to the workers to conduct their case. Murari Lal complained that all this was done with a view to victimise him because he was president of a recognised Union affiliated to the I. N. T. U. C. namely, Dalmia Dadri Cement Factory Men s Union. His further case was that the enquiry conducted ex parte was perverse and held in disregard of principles of natural justice. 14. Murari Lal complained that all this was done with a view to victimise him because he was president of a recognised Union affiliated to the I. N. T. U. C. namely, Dalmia Dadri Cement Factory Men s Union. His further case was that the enquiry conducted ex parte was perverse and held in disregard of principles of natural justice. 14. Before the Tribunal a number of witnesses were examined including the enquiry officer, S. N. Bhandari, Vidya Sagar, the Chief Chemist Damodardas Vyas, the Factory Manager, Vishnu Kumar, the Director-Secretary and Murari Lal. The points urged on behalf of the workmen were: (1) That the enquiry was vitiated in that the rules of natural justice were not observed and the workmen concerned were not given any real opportunity to contest the case (2) The enquiry was unauthorised inasmuch as the person who could legally decide to hold enquiry did not take any decision about it. (3) The Works Manager of the concern did not apply his own mind to the case and did not come to any independent finding but had abdicated his authority in favour of someone else and accepted the latter s recommendations blindly. At the hearing before the Tribunal the appellant did not lead any independent evidence about the guilt of the workmen but relied solely on the domestic enquiry and the report of the Enquiry Officer who was examined as a witness. 15. The Tribunal held the Management guilty of delay in the issue of charge-sheets to Murari Lal and some of the other workmen. It also commented on the fact that though the charges were sent by the Works Managers the orders for holding the enquiry were not passed by him but by Vishnu Kumar, Director-Secretary as late as August 29, 1964. He took exception to the Director-Secretary s approval of the report of the Enquiry Officer and his recommendation of the dismissal of the workmen. He was of the view that this should have been done by the Works Manager himself and although the orders of dismissal were nominally passed by the Works Manager, he had not applied his mind to the conclusions arrived at by the Enquiry Officer independently. He was of the view that this should have been done by the Works Manager himself and although the orders of dismissal were nominally passed by the Works Manager, he had not applied his mind to the conclusions arrived at by the Enquiry Officer independently. Apparently he was impressed by the text of the order of the Works Manager and took the view that on the Enquiry Officer submitting his report to the Director the latter had accepted the findings and recommended the workmen s dismissal from service. The order of dismissal issued by the Works Manager in the case of the employees other than the respondent recorded inter alia: "The papers have been forwarded to me for necessary action. Having regard to the fact that the appropriate authorities have found you guilty of the charges and the fact that the charges proved against you are sufficiently grave.......it has been decided to dismiss you. And you are accordingly dismissed from service with immediate effect." The Tribunal read the above as meaning that the Works Manager had not brought his independent decision to bear on the question but had merely accepted the recommendation of the Director/Secretary. According to the Tribunal this vitiated the order of dismissal. It may be noted that the Tribunal was not right in thinking that the Works Manager had used the same formula as quoted above in all the cases The text of the order of dismissal in the respondent s case is entirely different; the material portion thereof reads- "I have gone through the enquiry proceedings and accept the findings of the Enquiry Officer. I am satisfied that proper opportunity was given to you to defend yourself and the charges have been duly proved in the enquiry." 16. The Tribunal also took exception to the appointment of an outsider as the Enquiry Officer. He noted that the Enquiry Officer was an advocate practicing at Delhi and was a junior lawyer at times engaged to appear in cases with Anand Prakash, counsel for the appellant. He remarked that the Enquiry Officer was "at pains to prepare a very legalistic record which may ostensibly show that a very proper enquiry was made." The Tribunal went further and observed: "The manner in which the record has been prepared puts me in doubt that this was the record of a genuine enquiry. He remarked that the Enquiry Officer was "at pains to prepare a very legalistic record which may ostensibly show that a very proper enquiry was made." The Tribunal went further and observed: "The manner in which the record has been prepared puts me in doubt that this was the record of a genuine enquiry. The record as a whole gives me an impression that this was carefully prepared for the purpose of showing that an enquiry was ostensibly held and some of the workmen were also made to sign or make their thumb mark on the said record." In this connection For Citation : AIR 1971 SC 22