An employer cannot terminate an employee's employment based solely on the employee's detention under the Preventive Detention Act. The employer must hold a proper enquiry, giving the employee a reasonable opportunity to show cause and to lead evidence in their defense, before terminating their employment.

Judgment-

GAJENDRAGADKAR

( 1 ) THESE three appeals arise out of three writ petitions filed by the three respondents, Jaffar Imam, Brindaban Nayak and Jambu Patra, respectively on the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court against the appellant, the Calcutta Dock Labour Board. Each one of the respondents challenged the validity of the order passed by the appellant, terminating his employment as a registered dock worker with the appellant, on the ground that the said order was illegal and inoperative. The basis on which the impugned orders were challenged was that the enquiry which had been held before passing the said orders had not afforded to the respondents a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves and as such, the principles of natural justice had not been followed and even the relevant statutory provisions had been contravened. The writ petitions filed by Jaffar Imam and Jambu Patra were heard by Sinha, J. , whereas the writ petition filed by Brindaban Nayak was heard by P. B. Mukharji, J. The learned single Judges who heard these respective writ petitions substantially took the same view and rejected the contentions raised by the respondents. In the result, the writ petitions were dismissed.

( 2 ) AGAINST these decisions, the respondents preferred appeals before a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. The Division Bench has allowed the appeals and has issued an appropriate writ directing that the impugned orders by which the employment of the respondents was terminated by the appellant should be quashed. The appellant then applied for and obtained a certificate from the said High Court and it is with the certificate thus granted to it that it has come to this Court in appeal.

( 3 ) IT appears that the three respondents were Dock workers attached to the Port of Calcutta and were registered in the Reserve Pool. On 12/08/1955, the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta passed an order under S. 3 (1) (a) (ii) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (No. 4 of 1950) (hereinafter called the Act) directing that the respondents should be detained, as he was satisfied that they were guilty of violent and riotous behaviour and had committed assault and as such, it was necessary to detain them with a view to preventing them from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The respondents then made representation to the State Government under S. 7 of the Act alleging that the grounds set out in the detention orders passed against them were untrue and that their detention was in fact mala fide.

( 4 ) ON receipt of these representations, they were forwarded by the State Government to the Advisory Board under S. 9. It is well-known that the Act had made a provision for referring orders of detention to the Advisory Boards constituted under S. 8. When the Advisory Board received the representations made by the respondents, it took into account the material placed before it, considered the said representations, and submitted its report within the time specified by S. 10 (1 ). Since the report was against the respondents, their detention was confirmed by the State Government under S. 11 of the Act and in consequence, their detention was continued for about 11 months.

( 5 ) AFTER they were released from detention, they applied for allocation to registered dock employment, but instead of passing orders in favour of such allocation, the appellant commenced disciplinary proceedings against them and notices were served on them to show cause why their services should not be terminated on 14 days notice in terms of clause 36 (2) (d) of the Calcutta Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1951 (hereinafter called "the Scheme" ). The principal ground in these notices was that the respondents had been detained for acts prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and as such, their services were liable to be terminated. Accordingly, the respondents showed cause against the proposed order, but the Deputy Chairman of