It is quite clear that the provisions of Advocates (one-time offer) these two new sections 33 and 33-A of the 1947 Act correspond to and are in pari materia with the provisions of sections 22 and 23 of the 1950 Act and are more or less in similar terms. The question for our conside- 1252 ration is: What are the meaning, scope and effect of these sections. It was further contended that when a question arises whether a Tribunal has jurisdiction over the subject-matter, it must be competent to decide whether the preliminary conditions exist, on which its jurisdiction depends, and its decision on that question is not liable to be attacked in civil courts, and that accordingly the assumption of jurisdiction by the Appellate Tribunal Advocates – one-time offer – on the footing that there was a substantial question of law was not liable to be questioned by the civil court, and the decisions in Pankaj Kumar Ganguli v.
An enquiry was held and she was found guilty of the charge. Bank of India(3) and Upper Ganges Electric Employees Union v. 685 This brings us to the case of Abharani Debi, where also the same principles apply. It is common ground that the assessment payable on these lands at that time was 9 reas per burga, and Exhibit N shows that it was at that rate that the assessment Advocates (full report) was collected from 1858 until the lands were acquired by the Government in land acquisition proceedings. It goes further, and saves expressly “the rents now severally payable in respect of such lands”, rent being used here in the sense of assessment, and adds “which shall continue to be payable”.
In other words, it agreed to confer on the tenants the status of owners of lands. In cases of dismissal on misconduct, the Tribunal does not, however, act as a Court of appeal and substitute its own judgment for that of the management. It will interfere (i) when there is a want of good faith, (ii) when there is victimisation or unfair labour practice, (iii) when the management has been guilty of a basic error or violation of a principle of natural justice, and (iv) when on the materials the finding is completely baseless or perverse.
It is significant that before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, the Company did not even argue the case of Abharani. and another(4) were relied on in support of this contention nBut it is argued for the respondent that an award of the Tribunal refusing reinstatement would be appealable under section 7 (1) (a’) if it involved a substantial question of law, and that as the contention of the employees was that the orders dismissing them were bad as having been passed in contravention of ,the rules of natural justice, that was a question of law on which an appeal was competent.
It is accordingly contended for the respondents that under the Act, the Government could not claim anything more than 9 reas per burga as assessment on the lands. Undoubtedly, the management of a concern has power to direct its own internal administration and discipline; but the power is not unlimited and when a dispute arises, Industrial Tribunals have been given the power to see whether the termination of service of a workman is justified and to give appropriate relief. VI of 1851, it could not be doubted that the rights of the State to enhance the assessments would not be affected, because ownership of land does not per se carry with it an immunity from enhancement of assessment in exercise of sovereign rights, and occupants of Foras lands cannot claim to be in a better position by reason of the Act than owners of lands in ryotwari tracts, the assessments on which are liable to periodic revision.
She was a nurse in the Burnpur Hospital and the charge against her was that she had incited and instigated one Karu, a sweeper working in the hospital, not to attend his duties on the morning of September 5, 1953. If that was all the scope of Act No. Upper Ganges Valley Electricity Supply Co. The Tribunal found that the charge against her was completely baseless, and the Advocates, one-time offer, enquiry report against her made a mountain of a mole-hill. But what is against the appellant is Advocates [one-time offer] that section 2 does not stop with merely extinguishing the reversionary rights of the Company.
Section 33-A enjoins the Tribunal to decide the complaint “as if it were a dispute referred to or pending before it” and to submit its award to the appropriate Government and provides that the provisions of the Act shall apply to the award. , 2 of the Sanad made it quite clear that the grantee would receive only revenue from the subjects living in the villages of his Jagir according to the British Government’s rules of practice, and that the grantee was not at liberty to receive on any pretext “mahsul” for any commodity from any Mahajan or trader or any octroi, etc She made some comments to Karu with regard to a pass which had been issued to Karu, and the comments innocuous in themselves were magnified into a charge of intimidation.
Now, the contention of the respondents is that those words conferred on the Government a right to recover only the assessment which was then payable, and that there was thus a limitation on its right to enhance it. In our view, Abharani’s case comes under, clause (iv) above. It may be pointed out that the new sections 33 and 33-A thus inserted into the 1947 Act confer distinct benefits on the workmen and give some additional jurisdiction and power to the authorities mentioned therein.