.the proceedings, of the District Industrial Relations Committee. of March 29, 1964. No doubt, a day prior to that, the appellant had issued notices to the workmen, asking them to show cause .as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against them, for going on strike from March 18, 1964. There was a joint reply given by the workmen, on April 9, J 964, to the effect that, .at the meeting held on March 29, 1964, 1he management had agreed, not to take any disciplinary action, against the workmen, and that, it was on that basis that the '"trike itself was called off, and the workmen, arrested, were also released by the Government. There was no doubt an attempt, by the management, in their reply of April 10, 1964, to make it appear that they had not committed themselves, at the meeting of March 29, 1964, as memioned by the workmen. But it is rather surprising that, when the President of the Union, WWI, gave evidence to the effect tha1 there was a settlement, on March 29, 1964, whereby the management had agreed not to take any disciplinary action, against the workmen, there was absolutely no cross-examination, by the appellant, of that witness. There is no dispute that Mr. Wright represented the management, at the said meeting, and no suggestion even has been made to WWI that the evidence, given by him, is not correct. No doubt, the appellant, in their letter of April 10, 1964, had taken the stand that the company had not commil'led itself. not to take any action against the workmen, in respect of the first strike. The inquiry report of Shri Gupta, in respect of the ·second strike, was already in the hands of the management, on April 24, 1964. It is really after the receipt of this report, that the Acting Works Manager of the apPellant-company recorded warnings, as against the concerned workmen, on May 8, 1964, in respect of the first strike. This warning has been taken into account. by the Works Manager, when he passed the order of dismissal, in respect of the second strike, on May 23, 1964. Having due regard to these circumstances, the finding of the Labour Court, that the rontinuance of the disciplinary proceedings, and recording of punishments of warnings, as against the six concerned workmen. on May 8, 1964, in respect of the first strike, by the management was to create a ground for punishment and dis11Jissal, in respect -of the second strike, is perfectly justified. The further finding of the Labour Court, that the action of the management, in recording warnings in respect of the first strike, is not only not bona fide, but also against the settlement, arrived at, on March 29, 1964, is also correct. The first contention, on behalf of the management, therefore fails.
