The t.rue legal position about the Industrial Courts' jurisdiction and authority in dealing with cases of this kind is no longer in doubt. It is true that in several cases, contract of employment or provisions in Standing Orders authorise an industrial employer to ter111inate the service of his employees after gi'ing notice for one month or paying salary for one month iu lieu of notice, and normallv, an employer may, in a proper case: be entitled to xcr· cise the said power. But where an order of discharge passed by an employer gives rise to an industrial dispute. the form of the order by which the employee's 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 discharge simplidler or it amouots to dismissal which has put on the cloak of a discharge sirnpliciter. If the Industrial Court is satisfied that the ordlr of discharge is puniti'e, that it is malafule, or that it amounts ll victimisation or unfair labo,ir practice, it is compe· tent to !he Imlu,trial Court lo set aside the order and in a proper case, direct the reinstatement of the employee. In some cases, the tcrmiuation of the employee's services may appear to the Industrial Court to be capricious or so unreasonably severe that an inference may legitimately and reasonably be drawn that in terminating the services, the employer was not acting bo1•fidF. The test alwavs has to be whether the :!ct of the employer is '""'".fide or not. If the act is m(1[,..Jidr, or appears to be a colonrable
