IMPORTANT POINT
It would depend upon the facts of each case whether an employer has acted with undue haste while discharging or dismissing an employee and it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down or spell out any general principles in this regard.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW-Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971-Section 28-Termination of Services-Challenged-Writ Petition-New plea that there had been an unfair labour practice and employer had acted with undue haste-No such case pleaded before Labour Court or in revision before Tribunal-Complaints filed u/s 28 do not contain any particulars of undue haste-High Court erred in making out a new case and in setting aside concurrent findings of Labour Court and Industrial Court-It would depend upon facts of each case whether an employer has acted with undue haste while discharging or dismissing an employee-Respondents employees being watchman and havaldar in appellant s factory-Loss of confidence-Absence of respondents from work without leave-Standing orders of company empowered company to discharge said respondents on that ground.
Held : It would depend upon the facts to each case whether an employer has acted with undue haste while discharging or dismissing an employee. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down or spell out any general principles in this regard. Each case will have to be judges on its own facts. Keeping in mind the undisputed facts of the present case the only question is whether or when the termination letters were issued could is be said that the appellant had acted in undue haste. To recapitulate on 7th August, 1975 the company s employee Parkan had disclosed that respondents 2 and 3 were involved in the conspiracy of theft of the company s medicines. The said respondents were arrested on 9th August, 1975 and they were absent from duty as from that date. On 10th August, 1975 the statements of said respondents are stated to have been recorded pursuant to which recovery was stated to have been made of the stolen property. Charge-sheet against the said respondents was filed alleging offence having been committed under Section 381 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said respondents were not ordinary clerks in the office of the appellant but they were part and parcel of the watch and ward section, respondent No. 2 being the watchman and respondent no. 3 the havaldar. These two respondents were supposed to protect the property of the appellant company and on 14th August, 1975 the appellant company had before it information regarding the alleged involvement of these two persons in the theft of its property. It is difficult for us to appreciate how, under these circumstances, the High Court could possibly have come to the conclusion that there was any undue haste on the part of the appellant company in removing these respondents from service. The order termination the services of respondents 2 and 3 was passed nearly 5/6 days after the arrest of respondents 2 and 3 and during which period they had been absent without leave. It cannot be said that there was any undue haste on the part of the appellant company which could possibly lead to the conclusion that it was guilty of unfair labour practice. The High Court clearly erred in allowing respondents 2 and 3 make out a new case and then in coming to a conclusion which is clearly untenable. The orders of the Labour and Industrial Courts did not call for any interference. (Para )

JUDGMENT

Kirpal, J.-These are appeals by special leave from the judgment of the Bombay High Court whereby the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, filed by respondents 2 and 3 herein, was allowed and the orders of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court which had upheld the termination of their services was quashed with a direction to the appellant to give all consequential benefits to the said respondents.

2. The appellant is, inter alia, engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products. At the material time Waman S. Surve and R.B. Sail, respondents 2 and 3, were engaged as security staff (watchman and havaldar respectively) at the factory of the appellant situated at Thane, Bombay. It appears that on 7th August, 1975 one termporary workman named Parkar employed by the appellant at its aforesaid factory was caught by the appellant s security staff while he was trying to take away certain products of the appellant. Parkar was handed over to the police authorities and during the course of investigation he is stated to have disclosed to the police that besides himself two other workmen of the appellant employed in watch and ward section, namely, respondents 2 and 3 herein were involved in a conspiracy to commit theft of the products of the appellant.

3. On 8th August, 1975 the said respondents 3 and 3 were arrested by the police. It is the case of the appellant that during the course of interrogation both the said respondents confessed that they were involved in the theft of the appellant s products and their statements were recorded on 9th and 10th August, 1975 by the police in the presence of two panchas. Based on the said information the police is stated to have raided the houses of respondents 2 and 3 and recovered stolen property therefrom, which consisted of medicines manufactured by the appellant company.

4. After the arrest on 8th August, 1975, the said respondents 2 and 3 were absent from duty. On 14th August, 1975 a letter was written by the appellant to respondent No. 2 herein to the effect that he had been absent from duty with effect from 8th August, 1975 without intimation or permission. It was also stated therein that the company understood that respondent No. 2 had been arrested by the police in connection with the material which was stolen from the appellant s company. The letter further stated that while the company did not wish to sit in judgment on whether respondent no. 2 was in fact involved in any criminal action or not, it was perturbed that a member of its watch and ward staff even be suspected of involvement by the police. The company further stated that it had lost confidence in his suitability as a member of its such watch and ward staff and had come to the conclusion that it was not in the interest of the company to continue him in service. Accordingly, the company terminated the services of respondent no. 2 in accordance with the company s certified standing order no. 25(4). A formal letter of termination was also sent along with this communication. An identical letter of termination was written by the appellant to respondent no. 3 except that the absence of respondent no. 3 from duty was with effect from 9th August, 1975.

5. After the aforesaid recoveries were made the police filed chargesheets against respondents 2 and 3 and a criminal complaint for offence punishable under Section 381 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. Respondents 2 and 3 filed identical complaints on 13th November, 1975 before the Labour Court under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) challenging their termination of services by alleging that the appellant herein had committed unfair labour practice under Item 1 (a) to (b) of Schedule IV of the said Act. The appellant filed his written statement stating the full facts and contended that it had not committed any unfair labour practice.

7. A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1996 Supreme(SC) 1264

IMPORTANT POINTIt would depend upon the facts of each case whether an employer has acted with undue haste while discharging or dismissing an employee and it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down or spell out any general principles in this regard.

IMPORTANT POINT
It would depend upon the facts of each case whether an employer has acted with undue haste while discharging or dismissing an employee and it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down or spell out any general principles in this regard.