An employer cannot terminate an employee's employment solely on the basis of loss of confidence without establishing a reasonable basis for such loss of confidence.

P. A. CHOUDARY, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the writ petitioner against a judgment of our learned brother Jeevan Reddy, J. The writ petition is filed by the management, Royal Laboratories, against an award of the Labour Court, hyderabad, made in l. D. No. 3 of 1974.

( 2 ) THE Royal Laboratories is a pharmaceutical firm manufacturing drugs. One Srihari Sahay, the contesting respondent to the above writ petition, was one of its employees. The said Sahay was engaged by the said Royal Laboratories to work as Optical Testor and Supervisor. On the basis of certain allegations of misconduct of violence and disorderly behaviour, viz. , habitual neglect of work and wilful damage to the property of the management, charges were laid against the said Sahay by the management on 7th August, 1972. On the denial of those charges by the employee, the Management conducted a domestic inquiry in which it was found that the charges were proved against the employee. On that basis, the services of the employee were terminated by an order of discharge simpliciter on 25th September, 1972. Challenging that order of termination of his services, the employee raised an industrial dispute in i. D. No. 3 of 1974 before the labour Court, Hyderabad. The Labour court, by its award, dated 29-11-1977 found that the charges were not proved against the employee and that the terminate of his services was therefore improper. On the basis of that finding, the Labour Court ordered the employee s reinstatement with backwages. In doing so, the labour Court rejected the alternative plea of the Management based upon an allegation that it had lost confidence in the employee and that, therefore, in no event an order should be made for the reinstatement of the employee. Against that award of the Labour Court, the Management had preferred W. P. No. 1540 of 1978 which was dismissed by our learned brother Jeevan Reddy, J. , on 23rd March, 1983. Against that order of the learned Judge, the present Writ Appeal is preferred.

( 3 ) IT is not now seriously argued that, the judgment of the learned judge to the extent that it holds that order of termination dated 25th september, 1972 passed by the Management to be illegal, is bad. In fact, no serious argument is advanced against that part of the judgment of the learned judge. We may also mention that in a writ appeal against a judgment of a learned single Judge, it is not open to the appellate court to overrule the order of the learned single Judge made under Article 226 of the Constitution mainly on the ground that the applleate court does not agree with that view. So long as the view of the learned single Judge is one of the two plausible views to be taken and is not otherwise vitiated, a review of the matter is not open. We are on this point one with the view of a Judgment of the Kerala High Court reported in Neelakanta kartha vs. Registrar 1. We cannot find fault with the judgment under appeal on the ground that an alternative view which might commend itself to us is not accepted by him. At least, such review is not open to an appellate court hearing appeals against orders made under Article 226 of the constitution which is a discretionary remedy. We can only interfere on an error of principle, but not on reevaluation of evidence; nor on the basis of preferential choice of the alternatives. What is now seriously contended is that, assuming that the order of termination passed by the management cannot be sustained, the learned Judge ought not to have upheld the order of the Labour Court directing the reinstatement of the employee. It is argued by Sri. L. Panduranga Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, that the employee is working in the Laboratory manufacturing vital drugs and his conduct in the past would justify the loss of confidence in him by the Management. But we find that the management laid no factual foundations for its plea of loss of confidence.

( 4 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the Management before the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document