JUDGMENT Per H. N. Seth, J.: 1. BY this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution petitioner Dr. P. N. Gulati seeks to challenge the validity of an award under the Industrial Disputes Act, made by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gorakhpur, on 30 August 1972. 2. STATE of Uttar Pradesh, vide its notification, dated 25 November 1970, referred the following dispute between the employers, i.e., Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company, Ltd., Naini Allahabad, (respondent 2), and their employee Dr. P. N. Gulati, for adjudication, to the Labour Court, Allahabad: Whether the employers have validly and properly terminated the service of their workman, Dr. P. N. Gulati, with effect from 30 August 1969 ? if not, to what benefit or compensation is the concerned medical officer entitled to ? " Subsequently the reference was transferred to the Labour Court, Gorakhpur, and in due course both the employer and the employee filed their respective written statements before that Court. The employers claimed that Dr. P. N. Gulati 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 received a large number of complaints against Dr. Gulati which showed that the workers had lost confidence in him. In the circumstances,- it was not possible to continue his employment any further and his services were determined in accordance with the stipulation contained in his appointment letter. The employer further claimed that Dr. Gulati, not being a workman as denned 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. 3. IN his written statement, Dr. Gulati clamed that he was a permanent part-time employee of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company, Ltd., on a salary of Rs. 350 per swath and that he was a workman within the meaning of the INdustrial Disputes Act. He went on earned leave from 9 June to 5 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 to retain him permanently on a lower salary of Rs. 250 per month. He went on earned leave from 9 June to 5 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 to retain him permanently on a lower salary of Rs. 250 per month. Shortly after he rejoined 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 the unfair attitude of the mill secretary and sent a letter, dated 12 August 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 July 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 Ms service with effect from 30 August 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 where 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 Company, Ltd. 4. IN their rejoinder, the employers denied that the services of Dr. Gulati were terminated for the reasons stated by him. They asserted that by letter, dated 19 August 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 co-operate 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 Rs. 250 per month. 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 Rs. 250 per month. 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 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 amounted to use of unfair labour practice or victimization ; It can also scrutinize whether the simple order terminating the service of the workman is, in essence, a clear 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 mistakes and shortcomings, is not at all material. 5. ON the question of mala fide, the Labour Court, pointed out that whereas in his pleadings Dr. Gulati had attributed mala fides to the management, in his evidence he.