would be necessary at which it will have to be determined whether there was active or passive participation on his part in the said misadventure. Active participation in the context means that he propelled the illegal strike or indulged in sabotage or vandalism or violence or intimidation or the like. The despair of the Management at facing an illegal strike in which a large number of workmen participate-some of them actively, some of them passively-resulting in a crisis is no justification to invoke the plea of community guilt and to resort to common condemnation. In disciplinary jurisdiction, save on proof of individual delinquency, neither finding of guilt nor infliction of penalty could be justified. Nor is it defensible excuse, much less a valid vindication, for failure to hold an individualised inquiry that in the prevailing circumstances in which a large number of employees had participated in the illegal strike, it was not possible to give a charge-sheet to each individual in respect of the misconduct. Penalty sans inquiry is non est. True, if a dispute arises, the Management may still ask for an opportunity to separately make out a case against each workman before the industrial adjudicator. However, in that forum also, the role of the individual workmen and the degree of his turpitude shall have to be proved and the whole case would be open before the adjudicator to decide whether the charge is proved and what punishment should be awarded. And, if the adjudicator's award is challenged before the High Court in writ jurisdiction, it can be quashed "if it is vitiated by the fundamental flaws of gross miscarriage of justice, absence of legal evidence, perverse misreading of facts, serious errors of law on the face of the order, jurisdictional failure and the like". The High Court has "to be cautious both in not overstepping as if Article 226 were as large as an appeal and not failing to intervene where a grave error has crept in." In the ultimate analysis "Article 226, however restrictive in practice, is a power wide enough, in all conscience to be a friend in need when the summons comes in a crisis from a victim of injustice : and, more importantly, this extraordinary reserve power is unsheathed to grant final relief without necessary resource to a remand. What the Tribunal may, in its discretion, High Court too, under Art. 226, can, if facts compel, do." (See Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd.'s case (supra) (pp. 172-173)
