JUDGMENT H.N. SETH, J. - By this petition 'under Art. 226 of the Constitution petitioner Dr. P.N. Gulati -seeks to challenge the validity of se award under the Industrial Disputes Act, made &y the Presiding Officer Labour Court, Gorakhpur on 30.8.1972. 2. State of Uttar Pradesh, vide its notification dated 25.11.1970 referred the following dispute between the employers i. e. messier Swadosbi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd., Naini Allahabad (respondent No. 2), and their employer Dr. P. N. Gulati, for adjudication, to ' e If about Court Allahabad : "Whether the employers have validly and properly terminated the service of their workman, Dr. P. N. Gulati with effect from 30-&1% 9? If not, to what benefit or compensation its the concerned medical officer entitled for 3. Subsequently the reference was transferred to -the Labour Court Gorakhpur, and in dm course both the employer and the employee filed their respective written statements before that Court. The employers elsa8;hat Dr.'P. N Galati had been employed by them as a part time medical officer. the letter of appointment envisaged that his appointment was terminable on one month's notice by either side. The management reserved a large number of complaints against Dr. Galati which showed that the workers had lost confidence in him. In the circumstances it wax not possible to continue his employment any farther and his services were determined accordance with the stipulation contained is hie appointment letter. The employer fencer claimed that Dr. Gulati, not being a workmen as defined in the Industrial Disputes ,act the dispute raised by him was not an industrial dispute and the State Government had no jurisdiction to refer the same for adjudication to the Labour Court. 4. In his written statement, Dr. Gulati claimed that he was a permanent part time employee of Masers. Swadeshi Cotton Mills. Co. Ltd. on a salary of Rs. 350/. p. m. and that he was a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. the went on earned leave from 9th June to 5th July 1969. During his absence one Dr. T B. Singh, worked in his place as his substitute. Dr. T. B. Singh, taking advantage of the situation, brought pressure and persuaded the Mill Secretary to retain him permanently on a lower salary of 119. the went on earned leave from 9th June to 5th July 1969. During his absence one Dr. T B. Singh, worked in his place as his substitute. Dr. T. B. Singh, taking advantage of the situation, brought pressure and persuaded the Mill Secretary to retain him permanently on a lower salary of 119. 250/_ p. m. Shortly after he resined his duties on his return from leave, the Mill Secretary asked him to resign or else the management will be compelled to terminate his employment. He did not submit to the unfair attitude of the Mill Secretary and sent a letter dated 12.8.1969 asking him to refrain from giving effect to the evil design hatched up with the connivance of Dr. T. B. Singh. Thereafter, on 19-7-1969 the Mill Secretary served upon him a charge sheet and asked him to submit his explanation. However, without holding any enquiry or providing any opportunity to him to explain the charges, the employer terminated his service with effect from 30.8-1969. In the circumstances it was evident that his services had, in effect, been terminated by way of punishment without following proper procedure and in violation of the principle of natural justice. Dr. Gulati therefore, claimed that he was entitled to be reinstated with full back wages together will all attending benefits. He also claimed compensation for the loss of employment with another employer which employment he could not continue because of termination of his service with the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. 5. In their rejoinder, the employer's denied that the services of Dr. Gulati were terminated for the reasons stated by him. They asserted that by letter dated 19-8.1969 various complaints received against Dr. Gulati were brought to his notice. He, however, did not give any reply and instead took up a stand which was not becoming of his position. The stand taken up by Dr. Gulati showed that he was unwilling either to remove the grievance of the workman or to cooperate with the management in the efficient running of the dispensary. He was also not prepared to render efficient service to the patients. The employers, however, admitted that after terminating the service of Dr. Gulati they employed Dr. T. B. Singh on an initial salary of R. 250.1. pee month. 6. The Labour Court accepted that Dr. He was also not prepared to render efficient service to the patients. The employers, however, admitted that after terminating the service of Dr. Gulati they employed Dr. T. B. Singh on an initial salary of R. 250.1. pee month. 6. The Labour Court accepted that Dr. Gulati was a workman and repelled the plea of the employer that the reference made by the State Government was incompetent. After considering a number of authorities cited by both the sides, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that even if the employer has, under the contract of service, an unconditional right to terminate the service of a workman without assigning any reason, it is open to the Labour Court to, while dealing with a reference made under the Industrial Disputes Act, interfere with and set aside the order if it comes to the conclusion either that action of the employer was mala fide or that it amount. ed to use of unfair labour practice or victimisation. It can also scrutinies whether the simple order terminating the service of the workman is, in essence. a cloak for an order of dismissal. According to the labour Court the fact that the employer has, prior to terminating the service of the workman acquainted him with his mistake and shortcomings, is not at all material. 7. On the question of mala fides, the labour Court pointed out that whereas in his pleadings Dr. Gulati Lad attributed mala fides to the management, in his evidence he attributed the same to the labour welfare officer Sri Subbash Chandra Sinha. However, after considering the evidence produced in the case it came to the conclusion that the workers employed in the industry were very much dissatisfied with the behaviour and treatment of Dr. Gulati and that they had made complaints against him. There was sufficient cause for the employers to lose confidence in Dr. Gulati and their action in terminating his service could not be attributed to mala fides or victimisation. It therefore made an award answering reference in favour of the employers. 8. Being aggrieved Dr. Gulati has come up before this Court and has challenged the award on a number of grounds. Apart from justifying the award, Sri J. N. Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the Mills however submitted that considering the nature of work that was being performed by Dr. 8. Being aggrieved Dr. Gulati has come up before this Court and has challenged the award on a number of grounds. Apart from justifying the award, Sri J. N. Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the Mills however submitted that considering the nature of work that was being performed by Dr. Gulati, it could not lie said that he was a workman as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, the dispute between him and the employers was not an industrial dispute which could, under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, he referred by the State Government to the Labour Court In the circumstances Dr. Gulati was not entitled to any relief and no useful purpose will be served by going into the controversy raised by him in these proceedings, 9. In support of his submission t1 e doctor employed by an industry is not a workman as defined in the Industrial dispute" Act. Sri J. N. Tiwari relied upon 4 Division Bench decision of this Court in the could Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. v, Star d Uttar Pradesh reported in (1955) 2 Lab LLJ=( AIR 1955 All 578 ). In that case the ::art considered the definition of the workmen' contained in Section 2(s) of the industrial Disputes Act prior to its being substitution Act 36 56. The Court pointed on' the be word 'workman' had been defined thus : "any person employed (including are apprentice) in any industry to do any skilled unskilled manual or clerical work foe l: or reward." It held that it is only such persons are employed in an industry to do either rows , or clerical work that fall within the art of the aforesaid definition. A person engaged; by an industry to do some work which is rail or manual nor clerical in nature cannot be. considered to be a workman within the meaning of the expression as used in the industrial Disputes Act. Since a doctor is not employed by an industry to do either manual or clericals work, he cannot be considered to be a workmen man. However, the Parliament, by Act 3C of 1956 substituted a now section 2 (e) was the definition of the word 'workman' was wain d to certain extent. Since a doctor is not employed by an industry to do either manual or clericals work, he cannot be considered to be a workmen man. However, the Parliament, by Act 3C of 1956 substituted a now section 2 (e) was the definition of the word 'workman' was wain d to certain extent. Relevant portion of saluted section reads thus: "Workman means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry b o a skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory. technical or clerical work . . According to the changed definition, net only persons employed in an industry to do real or clerical work but persons employed.for doing supervisory or technical work are also to be considered to be workmen. Of course , the section goes on to provide that if the wages of person employed for doing supervisory mot* exceed Rs. 500/. per month, he will not be considered to be a workman. Even thou& a doctor is not employed for doing mail as or clerical work, be certainly is employed far doing work of technical nature. We are them fore, of opinion that the decision cited by the learned counsel has lost validity after and. went made in the Industrial Disputes A in the year 1956; and that a doctor employed in an industry for rendering medical aid to its employees. is a workman. The Labour Court, in our opinion, was quite justified in cancelling that in the circumstances the referee made by the State Government was competent 10. To begin with Sri Rajeshri Varma 'earned counsel appearing for Dr. Gulati satisfied that in this case the management vide its letter dated 19.8.1969 made allegations of certain misconduct against Dr. Gulati and called upon him to show cause why strict disciplinary action be not taken against him. The allegations made against Dr. Gulati were as follows : 1. That he had not been attending the dispensary for full period as agreed between him and the management. 2. Workers, officers, and Union of the workers had been complaining about Dr. Gulati 's negligence in not attending the patients properly. Further serious complaints had been received about Dr. Gulati's behaviour with workers etc. 3. That on certain dates, even though Dr. Gupta did not attend his duties he signed the register showing that he had attended to his duties. Similarly, he made fictitious entries with regard to his being on leave etc. Further serious complaints had been received about Dr. Gulati's behaviour with workers etc. 3. That on certain dates, even though Dr. Gupta did not attend his duties he signed the register showing that he had attended to his duties. Similarly, he made fictitious entries with regard to his being on leave etc. in the register." The very next day i.e. on 20.8.1969 Dr. Gulati addressed a letter to the Mill Secretary requesting him to let him have copies of all the complaints received against him so that he may submit his explanation. Instead of sup. plying the copies of the complaints, the employers passed the impugned order dated 30.8.1969, terminating his service. According to the learned counsel, these facts show that the employers terminated the services of the petitioner on allegation of misconduct. The order terminating the service of the petitioner was. therefore, P. cloak for an order dismissing him from service. Since Dr. Gulati was not given an opportunity to meet those allegations there had been violation of the standing orders as also of the principles of natural justice and the Labour Court error in upholding the impugned order. 11. Case of the employers on the other hand is that they had received a large number of complaints against Dr. Gulati from their workers. Although they served the show cause notice dated 19.8.1969 on Dr. Gulati, they did not proceed to punish him for the misconduct mentioned in the notice. In view of numerous complaints made against Dr. Gulati, confidence in proper performance of duties by him was lost. Accordingly, his services wore terminated with effect from 30.8-1969. 12. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of Workmen v. Sudder Office, 1972 Lab I C 1262, if the termination of service is a colourable exorcise of power vested in the management, or as a result of victimisation of unfair labour practice, the Industrial Tribunal would have jurisdiction to intervene and set aside such termination. In order to find out whether the order of termination of service is one of 'termination simpliciter under the provisions of contract or that of the standing order, the Tribunal has ample jurisdiction to go into all the circumstances which led to the making of the order. In order to find out whether the order of termination of service is one of 'termination simpliciter under the provisions of contract or that of the standing order, the Tribunal has ample jurisdiction to go into all the circumstances which led to the making of the order. The form of the order is not conclusive of its true nature for it is possible that the form may be merely a camouflage for an order of dismissal for misconduct. According to this decision in such cases what has to be investigated and found out by the Industrial Tribunal is the true nature of the order. 13. Similarly in the case of Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Workmen, A I R 1966 S C 1672 the Supreme Court observer] that in several cases it so happens that contract of employment or provision in Standing Orders authorise an industrial employer to terminate the service of his employee after giving notice for one month or paying one month's salary in lieu thereof, and normally an employer may, in proper cases, be entitled to exercise the said power. But, whore an order of discharge passed by an employer gives rise to an industrial dispute, the form of the order by which the employees' services are terminated, would not be decisive, industrial adjudication would be entitled to examine the substance of the matter and decide whether the termination is in fact simpliciter or it amounts to dismissal which has put on the cloak of discharge simpliciter. 14. Again, in the case of Workmen v. Sadder Office (1972 Lab I C 1262) (SC) (supra) even though a charge sheet was given to the workman concerned and an enquiry was conducted with a view to ascertain the correct. ness of the allegations made against him and thereafter his services were terminated by an innocuous and simple order, the High Court, after taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that the order terminating the service of the employee was neither an order made by way of punishment nor was it a cloak for a dismissal order. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the High Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the High Court. It thus follows that merely because at some stage the management acquaints the employee with the allegations of misconduct made against him with a view to elicit his version of the case, it does not mean that a simple order of termination of service would necessarily amount to an order of dismissal from service. 15. In our opinion it is only when either the simple order terminating the service of and employee has been passed with a view to. punish him for some misconduct or that it visits the employee with consequence similar to that of an order of dismissal, that it can be said that its real nature is that of a dismissal order dressed up as a simpliciter order of termination of service. 16. A copy of the written statement of Dr. Gulati, filed before the Labour Court in the instant case has been filed as Annexure II to the writ petition. Its perusal shows that the case of Dr. Gulati before the Labour Court was that the management of the mills, because of certain influence exerted upon it, wanted to employ Dr. T. B. Singh in his place on a lower salary. In order to achieve that object, they wanted to create a situation in which he may tender his resignation and leave the job. Accordingly, with a view to intimidate him, they served upon him the show cause notice dated 19.8.1969. When he did not oblige the management by tendering his resignation, the management made the order dated 30.8-1969 terminating his service. It thus appears that according to Dr. Gulati 's own case before the Labour Court his services had not been terminated with a view to punish him. In sub. stance Dr. Gulati accused the management of acting male, fide and adopting unfair labour practice. 17. A perusal of the written statements filed by the employers before the Labour Court (Annexures 6 and 9 to the writ petition) also shows that they also did not claim to have punished Dr. Gulati for any misconduct. Thus it is clear that before the Labour Court, it was no body's case that the services of Dr. Gulati had been terminated by way of punishment. It is true that in paragraphs 17 and 18 of his written statement Dr. Gulati for any misconduct. Thus it is clear that before the Labour Court, it was no body's case that the services of Dr. Gulati had been terminated by way of punishment. It is true that in paragraphs 17 and 18 of his written statement Dr. Gulati had claimed that the action of the employers in terminating his service amounted to wrongful dismissal as also unfair labour practice. The order which on the face of it was a simpliciter order of dispart was in reality a cloak for dismissal. We, however, feel that the allegations made in these two paragraphs do not alter the real issue raised by Dr. Gulati in his written statement, viz., that his service had been terminated not with a view to punish him for some misconduct tut with a view to accommodate Dr. T. B Singh in his place and that in the circumstances the course adopted by the employ era amounted to an unfair labour practice. 18. It has also not been shown that the petitioner was, as a result of the order, visited with consequence different from that of simple order of termination of service and similar to that of an order dismissing an employee from service. In the circumstances, merely because petitioner's service had been terminated after imputation of misconduct against him, it did not necessarily mean that the action had been taken with a view to punish him or that it was an order in dismissing him from service.) The argument raised by Sri Rajesh ji Verma in this regard cannot, therefore, be accepted. 19. On the pleadings of the parties, the questions that arose for consideration by the Labour Court were (1) whether in terminating the service of Dr. Gulati's service the management adopted an unfair labour practice or (2) whether the employees could and had in fact terminated his services because they had lost confidence in him. A perusal of the award given by the Labour Court shows that it dis. cussed both the questions together and came to the conclusion that there was discrepancy in the Dr. Gulati's pleadings and the statement made by him with regard to the reason why the management had proceeded to terminate his services. It pointed out that in his palings Dr. Gulati stated that his services had been terminated because the mill Secretary had been prevailed upon to employ Dr. Gulati's pleadings and the statement made by him with regard to the reason why the management had proceeded to terminate his services. It pointed out that in his palings Dr. Gulati stated that his services had been terminated because the mill Secretary had been prevailed upon to employ Dr. T. B Singh in his place. He did not say even a word against Sri Sinha, the Labour Welfare Officer. In his statement before the Labour Court, how. ever, Dr. Gulati attributed the termination of his service to Sri Sinha's manipulations, who he alleged was inimical to him and did not say anything against the mill Secretary. The Labour Court believed the evidence of Sri Sinha and a number of workmen produced by the management and held that the workmen were dissatisfied with the treatment meted out to them by Dr. Gulati and therefore there was sufficient justification for the employers to lose confidence in Dr. Gulati. They were accordingly, justified in terminating his services and their action was neither mala fide nor could it be branded as an sot amounting to victimisation, etc. 20. Now in a case where the management has the power to terminate the services of its employee without assigning any reason and by giving him certain notice or pay in lieu thereof, it can certainly terminate the service if it loses confidence in the workman provided the power to terminate the service has been exercised bona fide and not with a view to punish or victimise the work. man concerned and that there is no element of use of unfair labour practice. However, the form of the order would not he conclusive and it is open to the industrial adjudicator to find whether the simpliciter order of termination has been made either with a view to punish the workman or by way of victimisation and whether it amounts to an unfair labour practice. This would be evident from the following observations made by the learned Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of L Michael v. Jhonson Pumps Ltd. (AIR 1973 S C 661) =(1975 Lab I C 399). This would be evident from the following observations made by the learned Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of L Michael v. Jhonson Pumps Ltd. (AIR 1973 S C 661) =(1975 Lab I C 399). "Before we conclude, we would like to add that an employer who believes or suspects that his employee, particularly one holding a position of confidence has betrayed the confidence can, if the condition and term of employment permit, terminate his employment and discharge him without any stigma attaching to the discharge. But such belief or suspicion of the employee should not be mere whim or fancy. It should be bona fide and reasonable. It must rest on some tangible basis and the power has to be exercised by the employer objectively, in good faith, which means honestly with due care and providence. If the exercise of such power is challenged, on the ground being colourable or mala tide or an act of victimisation or unfair labour prat. Lice, the employer must disclose to the court, the grounds for his impugned action so that the same may be tested judicially." 21. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of the Management of the Hotel Oberoi v. R. K. Baweja (1915) 30 Fec L R 70) (Delhi) urged that oven in a case where the services of an employee are to be terminated on the ground of loss of confidence, the facts leading to such loss of confidence have to be brought to his notice and he is to be afforded an opportunity to explain the matter. In this connection he relied upon the following observations made by Sachar J: "The mere ipse dixit of the management that it has lost confidence in an employee is not enough to warrant the dismiss:til of an employee unless it is proved as a major misconduct, which necessarily requires a charge sheet and regular enquiry and finding to that effect . 22. In our opinion, reliance placed by the learned counsel, on the aforesaid decision of the Delhi High Court, is completely misplaced. A perusal of the judgment shows that the aforesaid observations were made in light of the standing orders involved in that case. Chapter VI of the Standing Orders dealt with misconduct and punishment. 22. In our opinion, reliance placed by the learned counsel, on the aforesaid decision of the Delhi High Court, is completely misplaced. A perusal of the judgment shows that the aforesaid observations were made in light of the standing orders involved in that case. Chapter VI of the Standing Orders dealt with misconduct and punishment. Item No. 52 there)f laid down that any act or omission showing loss of confidence in the employee was a major misconduct for which he could be dismissed. Since the act of losing confidence was listed in the standing order as a misconduct punishable by way of dismissal from service it was held that before proceeding to punish the employee, it was obligatory upon the employer to charge sheet him, tell him the reason for the loss of confidence and obtain his explanation. Aforesaid observation will not at all be relevant in a ease whore an act or omission leading to loss of confidence has not been listed in the standing orders as a misconduct rendering the workmen liable to be punished. 23. In the instant case the services of Dr. Gulati were terminated in accordance with the right flowing under the contract of service on the ground that there was loss of confidence in him and the only question on which the labour court had to advert itself was. as to whether the action of the employer was bona fide and that it did not result in adoption of unfair labour practice. 24. Learned counsel for the employers urged that before the labour court, their case was that they ha f been receiving large number of complaints both oral an I written, saying that Dr. Gulati had not been attending to the workmen engaged in the industry and that his behaviour with them was also not goo]. In these circumstances, the workers had lost confidence in Dr. Gulati and did not want to be treated by him. In order to prove their case, the employer examined Sri S. C. Sinha the la')our welfare officer to whom various complaints were addressed, as also a number of workmen who were dissatisfied with the behaviour and treatment of Dr. Gulati. The Labour Court believed the evidence of these witnesses and held that in the circumstances there was sufficient reason for the employers to lose confidence in Dr Galati and that their action in terminating his ear. Gulati. The Labour Court believed the evidence of these witnesses and held that in the circumstances there was sufficient reason for the employers to lose confidence in Dr Galati and that their action in terminating his ear. vice was not by way of victimisation or use of unfair practice. The finding recorded by the, Labour Court is a finding of fact based on' appraisement of evidence on record. It cannot be reappraised by the High Court in proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution. So long as the finding stands, the award made by the labour Court cannot be interfered with. 25. Aforesaid argument of the learned counsel, in so far as it goes, undoubtedly has the merit of logic. However, if the Labour Court, while arriving at the aforesaid finding omits to take into consideration important evidence which has material bearing on the controversy, its order would be vitiated and can be quashed. 26. The case of Dr. Gulati before the labour Court was that a friend of the Mill Secretary approached and persuaded him to employ Dr. T. B. Singh on a lower salary. This is why his services had bean terminated by adopting a subterfuge. In support of this case, Dr. Gulati relied upon the following circumstances : (1) All the complaints relied upon by the management were for a period subsequent to 9.8 69 i.e. proximate to the date en which his services were terminated. (2) Immediately after terminating his services the management employed Dr. T. B. Singh on a lower salary. 27. He also examined Sri -Parmanand Tewari, Secretary, I. N. T. U. C. as a witness in support of his case. Sri Tewari stated that on 13 or 14th August, 1969 on being approached by Dr. Galati, he talked to the Mill Secretary on telephone. The Mill Secretary told him that Dr. T. B. Singh was prepared to work on a salary of Rs. 250/. p.m. only and that he was also prepared to put in two hours of work every day instead of 1j hours as was being done by Dr. Galati. When he asked the secretary as to whether he should ask Dr. Gulati if he was prepared to put in more work for lesser pay, the secretary told him that Dr. T. B. Singh's brother was his friend and that he was practically committed to him to employ Dr. Galati. When he asked the secretary as to whether he should ask Dr. Gulati if he was prepared to put in more work for lesser pay, the secretary told him that Dr. T. B. Singh's brother was his friend and that he was practically committed to him to employ Dr. Singh and that in the circumstances he could not do anything for Dr. Gulati, 28. A perusal of labour Court's award shows that although it noticed the aforesaid statement made by Sri Tewari, it neither believed it nor disbelieved it. Instead, it observed that the statement did not prove anything, for it is quite possible that the managements did not want to give publicity to the allegations male against Dr. Gulati lest its action in simply terminating his service may got vitiated. We are at a loss to under. stand the logic behind the aforesaid reasoning. If the statement made by Sri Tewari is believed it would undoubtedly go to show that the real reason for terminating the service of Sri Gulati was that the management had committed itself to engage in his place the brother of Mill Secretary's friend on a lower pLy and not that the management had, as claimed by it, lost confidence in Dr. Gulati because of various complaints received by it. Since the labour Court was of opinion that the statement made by Sri Towari proves nothing, it is obvious that it did not take it into account.while considering the question whether action of the management in terminating Dr. Gulatt's service was bona fide or not. The labour Court has, therefore, arbitrarily ignored material evidence bearing on the question. If the statement made by Sri Towari was believable, it would undoubtedly have re. percussion on the appraisement of evidence given by the Labour Welfare Officer as ales that furnished by the alleged complaints said to have been made by various workman. We also find that the Labour Court has not given any finding as to whether in the circumstances termination of service of Dr. Gulati with a view to accommodate Dr. T. B Singh .as claimed by the petitioner and on which question we do not express any opinion) has re. salted in adoption of unfair labour practice. 29. We also find that the Labour Court has not given any finding as to whether in the circumstances termination of service of Dr. Gulati with a view to accommodate Dr. T. B Singh .as claimed by the petitioner and on which question we do not express any opinion) has re. salted in adoption of unfair labour practice. 29. As, while as sassing the respective cases of the parties, the Labour Court ignored and did not take material evidence, bearing on controversy involved in the ease, into consideration, its award is vitiated and is liable to be quashed. It will have to made a fresh award after first deciding as to whether in the circumstances of the case the evilunc of workmen's witness. Sri Parmanaal Tewari, ii such which can be believed ant acted upon. If the evidence of Sri Tewari is found to use believable its impact on the question :13 to what was the real reason for terminating Dr. Gulati's services as also one other civil. dunce produced by the employer will him to be reappraisal and reassessed accordingly. 30. Before parting with the case we may point out that one of the arguments raised by the learned counsel fer Dr. Gulati was that the award of the Labour Court is vitiated for the reason that whereas according to employer's written statement, his services had been terminated as he had lost confidence of other workmen, the Labour Court upheld the validity of the order on the filling that the employees have lost confidence tinhorn. This according to him, was not the case of any party. We are unable to accept this argument. In substance the plea raised by the employer in the written statement was that because of indifferent and improper treatment meted out by Gulati, the workmen of the concern were not satisfied I with him. If the persons for whose benefit the services of Dr. Galati had hem procured, did not want to gat themselves treated by him, there was no point in continuing; his service, Viewed in the light of evidence accepted by the Labour Court, this is what it meant by saying that there was sufficient reason for the employees to loss confidence in Dr. Galati. 31. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allows]. Tae award of the Labour Court, published by the State Government vide its notification dated 16.6.73, is sat aside. Galati. 31. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allows]. Tae award of the Labour Court, published by the State Government vide its notification dated 16.6.73, is sat aside. The Labour Court will, in the light of the observations made in this judgment, after re. hearing the parties concerned an,l on the basis of the material already on the recur 1, make a fresh award on the question referred t) it by the State Government. Parties are directed to be it t weir o Fyn c,,3ts.