Judgment

KRISHNA IYER, J :- Industrial law in India has many twilight patches, illustrated by the present appeal which projects the problem of an employee whose services have been terminated simpliciter by the Management, a pump manufacturing enterprise, issuing a notice ending the employment and offering one month s pay as authorised by the relevant Standing Orders. The thorny legal issue is whether the ipse dixit of the employer that he has lost confidence in the employee is sufficient justification to jettison the latter without levelling and proving the objectionable conduct which has undermined his confidence so that the tribunal may be satisfied about the bona fides of the firing as contrasted with the colourable exercise of power hiding a not-so-innocuous purpose

2. The backdrop.

The facts and circumstances become decisive of the fate of the case even where the law is simplistic or fair in its face. Here, what are the events end environments of employment reading to the worker being given the boot ? Is the order an innocent and therefore, legal quit notice sanctioned by the Standing Orders which does not stigmatise the worker but merely bids him good-bye ? Or is it a sinister intent to punish masked as a guideless order based on loss of confidence , an alibi which on a certain reading of this Court s rulings, is also a protective armour against judicial probe and setting aside ?

3. Michael, a permanent employee of proved efficiency and six years standing, was appreciatively given two merit increments. But a letter of September 2, 1970 told him off service giving him one month s notice-pay discharging him without damning, as distinguished from dismissing him for misconduct.

4. The rival versions illumine the factual confrontation, the resolution of which is no easy legal essay. The worker, Michael, through his Union, protested against the sack order as victimisation of a Trade Union activist but the Management was heedless, conciliation was fruitless and the dispute between the Union and the Management was eventually referred by the Delhi Administration to the Labour Court for adjudication. The reference ran thus:

"Whether the termination of services of Shri L. Michael is illegal and/or unjustified and, if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect ?"

Both sides stated their cases in their pleadings and the true nature of the conflict emerges from them.

5. The story set out by the employee in his statement before the Labour Court was that although he was efficient, appreciated and awarded merit increments, the Management was antagonised by his active part in the formation of an Employees Union, especially because oral warnings by the Regional Manager against his Unionist proclivity was ignored. Michael became the treasurer of the Union. This Union chapter claimed its price, for the Management quietly terminated his services by a simple letter which reads:

"We are sorry to advise that your services are no longer required by the Company. As such, this letter may be treated as a notice for the termination of your services with immediate effect. As for the terms of your employment letter, on termination of services you will be paid one month s salary extra. You may please call on the undersigned and have your accounts settled."

This act, claims the worker, was in flagrant violation of elementary principles of natural justice without assigning any reason and without giving him an opportunity to defend himself. This, in his statement, he challenged the termination as wrongful, male fide, illegal, and an act of victimisation . The counter case of the management set up in its statement, as is apparent from the discharge order is that no dismissal is involved, no enquiry necessary and no illegality invalidates.

6. The management claimed that the alleged annoyance with the workman for union activity was a concoction in self-defence, as the Management had not even knowledge of the formation