Judgment

HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I. : The appellant, who appeals by certificate granted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, was appointed as Assistant Surgeon on probation for one year by the Board of Directors, Hindustan Steel Ltd., Ranchi with effect from October 22, 1959. After completing his period of probation he was employed on a contract for 5 years. Ex. P-3 is the Contract of Service which he entered into with the Company. Under the terms of the contract there was a further period of probation. During the period of probation the Company could terminate his service without notice and without assigning any reason. On the completion of the period of probation, either side could terminate the contract by 3 months notice without assigning any reason. The Company could also terminate the employment by giving in lieu of notice, three months salary. This term was applicable till three months immediately before the end of the period of 5 years. If a notice terminating the service was not given three months before the close of the end of 5 years the contract was automatically extended till the incumbent became superannuated on reaching the age of 55 years.

2. The appellant passed the probation period and he was entitled to three months notice if his services were to be terminated. The Company maintains certain set of Rules governing the employment of its workmen, in addition to the Standing Orders of the Company. Ex. P-4 represents the procedure for imposing major penalties and for punishment and appeal. These are extracts from the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules.

3. On September 17, 1964 the appellant was on duty in the Medical Out-Patients Department. He examined one Mrs. Holey who complained of cold, headache and weakness. It appears that Mrs. Holey complained of some mis-behaviour on the part of the appellant and her husband reported the matter to the Chief Medical Officer of the Bhilai Steel Plant where the appellant was then posted. The Chief Medical Officer asked for the explanation of the appellant on September 21, 1964, but the appellant denied the allegation. Some enquiry was then held. The appellant in his appeal submits that he was not given a copy of the written complaint received from Mr. and Mrs. Holey. On October 5, 1964 some witnesses were examined in the presence of the appellant. Two days previously the statements of Mr. and Mrs. Holey were also recorded. The enquiry was being held by the Commercial Manager. The appellant then sent a notice to Mr. and Mrs. Holey charging them with defamation and actually filed a suit on November 17, 1964 demanding damages. On December 15, 1964 the General Manager terminated his services with effect from March 15, 1965, that is to say, after the expiry of three months notice under the contract. It was stated in the order that the services were being terminated in terms of his employment.

4. The appellant thereupon filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh claiming inter alia that his services were wrongly terminated without giving him the protection granted by Article 311 of the Constitution. He also complained of breach of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the enquiry was not proper. His contention was that although the action was ostensibly taken according to the terms of the contract of employment, he was really punished and he was entitled, therefore, to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution. The Company resisted the ground by saying that Article 311 was not applicable to the appellant inasmuch as he was employed by a Corporation and neither belonged to the Civil Service of the Union nor held a Civil post under the Union. The High Court in its judgment ruled that the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution was not available in the case because the appellant was not entitled to it.

5. It appears that this was the only point urged in the High Court. In the appeal before us attempt was made to enlarge the c