Illegal strike and refusal to resume duty may justify termination when misconduct is proved before industrial adjudication.

Continued participation in an illegal strike, coupled with refusal to resume duty despite repeated notices and opportunities to explain, was treated as misconduct justifying termination. The governing principle was that an illegal strike does not by itself automatically warrant dismissal, but where no domestic enquiry is held the employer may still sustain the action in industrial adjudication by leading evidence before the Tribunal. On the facts, the workmen's persistent absence and non-response supported the management's case, and the termination of service was upheld; the direction for reinstatement was set aside, except for the conceded case governed by the absence of standing orders.

---

---

Issues: Whether the termination of workmen's services for continued participation in an illegal strike and refusal to resume duty could be upheld without a prior domestic enquiry.

Analysis: The workmen had gone on strike while an industrial reference was pending, and repeated notices were issued calling upon them to return to duty. The management also gave them opportunities to explain their absence and to resume work, but they continued to stay away and did not reply. The governing principle was that an illegal strike by itself does not automatically justify dismissal, but where misconduct is alleged the employer may sustain the action in industrial adjudication by leading evidence before the Tribunal even if no domestic enquiry was held. On the facts, the persistent refusal to join duty despite repeated opportunities was treated as misconduct, and the management's action was found to have been justified on the evidence.

Conclusion: The termination of the workmen's services, other than the conceded case of the workman governed by the absence of standing orders, was held valid and the direction for reinstatement was set aside.

---