Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.A.Vaidialingam : P.Jaganmohan Reddy
Workmen Of Sudder Office, Cinnamara
Versus
Management Of Sudder Office
Case No. : 483 of 1967
Date of Decision : 9/22/71
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Termination Of Services – Appeal by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order of the High court of Assam and Nagaland, in Civil Rule 201 of 1965 quashing the award of,the Labour court of Assam in Reference 98 of 1961, in and by which the Labour court had set aside the order dated 19/04/1960 of the management terminating the services of the workman B. N. Tfiakur. – Held, Management could have, no doubt, taken disciplinary action against the workman concerned, according to law. But it has not done so in this case. – On the other hand, when the circumstances showed that the Company can no longer place its trust and confidence in the workman, the management terminated his services by making available to him all amounts that he will be entitled to in case of termination simpliciter underclause 9 of the Standing Orders. – Entire basis of the Labour courts award for holding that the order is one of dismissal is its view, that the management has invoked Clause 9 to camouflage its action. – When that approach has been given up on behalf of the workman before the High court, the reasoning of the Labour court falls to the ground and the High court has acted within its jurisdiction under Article 226 when it set aside the order of the Labour court especially when there has been no finding of victimisation, unfair labour practice or mala fides recorded against the management. – Court is satisfied that the High court was justified in setting aside the order of the Labour court. – As court agree with the view of the High court that the order is one terminating the services of the workman simpliciter, it is unnecessary for us to refer to the various decisions relating to the circumstances under which, the Labour court or an Industrial tribunal can interfere with the findings recorded in a domestic inquiry. – Nor is it necessary to consider the decisions referred to us relating to the circumstances under which a reinstatement need not be ordered, even if it is held that the order of termination of service or dismissal cannot be justified. – It is stated that one months pay and allowances in lieu of notice are Rs. 361.95P. – Six months wages now agreed to be paid by Mr. Chagia will be worked out on this basis. – Amount will be paid to the workman within three months from today – Appeal Dismissed
C.A.VAIDIALINGAM, J.
(1) THIS appeal by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 17/01/1966 of the High court of Assam and Nagaland, in Civil Rule 201 of 1965 quashing the award dated 3/03/1965 of,the Labour court of Assam in Reference 98 of 1961, in and by which the Labour court had set aside the order dated 19/04/1960 of the management terminating the services of the workman B. N. Tfiakur.
(2) THE workman was employed as the Head Godown Clerk in the first respondents engineering godown in Sadar office. He was mainly responsible for receipts and issue of stores from the engineering godown of the Company; and accocding to the management, he was holding a position of trust and responsibility. On 12/03/1960 the Manager of Rungagora Tea Estate had sent a lorry to Saldar office to collect certain stores for the garden. The said lorry was being driven by a garden lorry driverJamiruddiii. When the driver was collecting stores from the engineering godown, the workman who was at that time the Head Godown Clerk instructed the former is take three used pulleys, belonging to the Company in the lorry and to drop them at, M/s Sharma and Company at Jorhat. The driver was also informed that the pulleys were being returned to M/s Sharma and Company they as belonged to the latter. The lorry driver loaded the pulleys in the garden lorry as directed by the workman. But as he forgot to drop them at the depot of M/s Sharma and Company, the pulleys were taken to Rungagora Tea Estate. On 16/03/1960 the driver of the lorry informed the Manager of Rungagora Tea Estate that the three pulleys had been brought to the garden godown by mistake instead of delivering them to M/s Sharma and Company, as directed by the workman. As there was no challan produced by the driver for clearing the goods from the engineering office, the Manager informed the Assistant Manager of Sadar office on 18/03/1960. On instructions from the Sadar office, the pulleys were returned to the garden office.
(3) A preliminary investigation was held by the management regarding the circumstances under which the three pulleys came to be removed from the engineering godown. As the workman was not able to. give any satisfactory explanation for the removal of the goods from the engineering godown, a charge-sheet was served on him by the management on 21/03/1960. In the charge-sheet it was alleged that the workman BholaNath Thakur had removed three pulleys on 12/03/1960 from the Company godown and loaded them in the garden lorry without authority and had instructed the lorry driver to drop them at the godown of M/s Sharma and Company at Jorhat. It was further stated that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence under the Standing Orders of the Company.
(4) THE workman was called upon within the time specified therein to offer his explanation and also to state why he should not be dismissed or otherwisepuiushed. He was also informed that he would be given a personal hearing on March 22, 1960. The workman sent a reply on 22/03/1960, staling that the pulleys which had been received in the workshop in February, 1960, were found to be unsuitable and had been returned to him by the foremanof the workshop. As the garden lorry was collecting the stores on 12/03/1960 and as the pulleys had to be taken back and kept in the American Hospital Godown, from where, they had been received, they were loaded in the lorry by the workman with instructions to the driver to deliver them at the American Hospital Godown. The despatch of the pulleys was duly intimated to the Assistant Company Manager. Thereafter a challan was issued to the Manager,Rungagora Tea Garden to return the pulleys. The workman further stated that he did not ask the driver of the garden lorry to deliver the pulleys in the godown of M/s Sharma and Company, Jorhat, and if the driver got any such idea, it must be due to his misunderstanding the instructions given by
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
