JUDGMENT

JASWANT SINGH, J. :— This appeal by special leave which is directed against the judgment and order dated July 5, 1977 of the Bombay High Court dismissing the appellants special civil application No. 614 of 1972 and refusing to quash the order dated April 5, 1972 of the President, Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Bombay whereby the latter set aside the order of the 4th Labour Court at Bombay and directed reinstatement in service of Miss M. P. Padgaonkar, respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) with full back wages on the ground that her termination of service was bad in law raises the following questions:-

"Whether the termination of service of a permanent employee of the Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking on account of his unsatisfactory record of service can be regarded as punitive so as to compel the employer to hold a disciplinary enquiry?

or

whether such termination can be effected by giving in writing to the employee the aforesaid reason for termination and one calendar months written notice or pay including allowances admissible in lieu thereof?"

2. For a proper determination of the abovementioned question, it is desirable to state the circumstances which have given rise to the appeal. The respondent who was working since Feb. 4, 1959 as a clerk in grade A/G-V in the Consumers Department (North) of the B. E. S. T. (Bombay Electric Supply and Transport) Undertaking (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the Undertaking) which is run by the appellant was informed by the Executive Assistant to the General Manager of the Undertaking vide communication dated Jan. 20, 1968, that her services would stand terminated from the close of work on Jan. 23, 1968, as her record of service was unsatisfactory. It was, however, stated in the communication that she would be paid one months wages in lieu of notice and would also be eligible for all the benefits as might be admissible under the Standing Orders and Service Regulations of the Undertaking. The appeal preferred by her against this order to the Assistant General Manages having remained unsuccessful, the respondent made an application before the Labour Court under S. 42 (4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act contending that the order terminating her services was invalid as it was not passed by the competent authority as envisaged by the Standing Orders and that the so called Executive Assistant to the General Manager had no authority to terminate her service because no validly sanctioned post of that designation existed on 20th or 23rd Jan. 1968. It was also contended by the respondent that the aforesaid order terminating her service besides being mala fide was violative of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the same was passed without holding any enquiry or giving her a reasonable opportunity of defending herself against the vague and general allegations which formed the basis of the order. The Labour Court dismissed the application observing that though the post of Executive Assistant did not exist at the relevant time, the termination did not suffer from the vice of mala fides nor could it be said to be invalid as it was actually effected by the General Manager and was merely communicated by his Executive Assistant. The Labour Court further held that despite the fact that unsatisfactory record of service was mentioned as the reason for termination, it could not be said to be punitive. Aggrieved by this order of the Labour Court, the respondent filed an appeal to the President of the Industrial Court which was allowed by him vide his order dated April 5, 1972 on the findings that J. P. Fernandes who used the appellation of the Executive Assistant to the General Manager was not competent or authorised to terminate the service of the respondent; that the conclusion of the Labour Court that the impugned order was made by the General Manager himself was not warranted by the facts and conduct of the parties; that the l