Judgment

DESAI, J.:- In exercise of the power conferred by sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Government of the State of West Bengal as an appropriate Government referred the following dispute to the Ninth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal for adjudication. The reference reads as under :

"Whether the termination of services of Shri Manas Kumar Mukherjee is justified? To. what relief, if any is he entitled?"

2. Hindustan Steel Ltd. (Employer for short) dismissed Manas Kumar Mukherjee (Workman for short) without holding any inquiry and without giving any opportunity to the workman to question or correct the allegation of misconduct levelled against him and in violation of principles of natural justice. The employer tried to sustain its action by invoking its powers under Standing Order 32 of the certified, Standing Orders of the Hindustan Steel Ltd. S. O. 32 reads as under:

"32. Special Procedure in certain cases.

Where a workman has been convicted for a criminal offence in a Court of Law or where the General Manager is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that it is inexpedient or against the interests of security to continue to employ the workman, the workman maybe removed or dismissed from service without following the procedure laid down in Standing Order 31."

S. O. 31 prescribed detailed procedure for dealing with cases of misconduct. Briefly stated, the procedure prescribed in S. O. 31 for imposing major penalty is that the employer has to draw up a charge-sheet and give an opportunity to the delinquent workman to make his representation within seven days. If the allegations are controverted, an enquiry has to be held by an officer to be nominated. by the management and in such an enquiry reasonable opportunity of explaining and defending the alleged misconduct must be given to the workman. The delinquent workman may also be given the assistance of a fellow employee. The procedure also permits suspension of the delinquent workman pending enquiry. At the end of the enquiry, if the charges are held proved, and it is provisionally decided to impose major penalty the delinquent workman has to he afforded a further reasonable opportunity to represent why the penalty should not be imposed on him. According to the employer it can dispense with such an enquiry in exercise of the power conferred by S. O. 32. "Me scope and ambit of S. O. 32 will be presently examined.

3. The Tribunal field that as the employer dispensed with the disciplinary enquiry in exercise of the power conferred by S. O. 32, it cannot be said that dismissal from service was not justified. The Tribunal observed that even if there were allegations of misconduct, the employer was quite competent to pass an order of removal from service without holding any enquiry in view of the provision contained in S. O. 32. The Tribunal concluded that (though) the employer accused the workman of committing misconduct and proceeded to pass the order of removal from service without holding any enquiry into the allegations of misconduct it cannot be said to be a colourable exercise of power and the workman would nor be entitled to any relief. The Tribunal accordingly rejected the reference, Hence this appeal by special leave.

4. The only question that must engage our attention is what is the scope and ambit of S. O. 32. It has already been extracted. Upon its true construction, the Standing Order does not provide that for reasons to be recorded in writing, an enquiry into misconduct can be dispensed with. S. O. 32 clearly confers power upon the General Manager that on his being satisfied that it is inexpedient or against die interest of security to continue to employ the workman, then for reasons to be recorded in writing the workman may be removed or dismissed from service without following the procedure laid down in Standing Order 31. This archaic standing order reminiscent of the days of hire and fire is relied upon by a public sector undertaking to sustain a