Back
1982 Supreme(AP) 106
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.SEETHARAM REDDY
South Central Railway Employees Co-operative Credit Society - Appellant
Versus
Labour Court - Respondent
Decided On : 04-14-82
In cases of invalid dismissal, the normal rule is that the employee should be reinstated. However, in exceptional circumstances, such as where the employer has lost confidence in the employee, reinstatement may not be appropriate.
Headnote:
LABOUR LAW - REINSTATEMENT - LOSS OF CONFIDENCE - CIRCUMSTANCES - RELEVANT FACTORS - COURT'S DISCRETION - WRIT OF CERTIORARI - QUASHING OF ORDER - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a cooperative credit society, sought to quash an order of the Labour Court reinstating a dismissed employee, A. Ramdas, on the ground that the employer had lost confidence in him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges against the employee were not substantiated by evidence and that he had a long record of unblemished service. The court also held that the employee did not hold a position of confidence and trust, and that the employer's loss of confidence in him was not justified.
Issues: 1. Whether the employer had lost confidence in the employee. 2. Whether the employee held a position of confidence and trust. 3. Whether the Labour Court erred in ordering the employee's reinstatement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the employer had not lost confidence in the employee, as the charges against him were not substantiated by evidence and he had a long record of unblemished service. The court also held that the employee did not hold a position of confidence and trust, and that the employer's loss of confidence in him was not justified. Therefore, the Labour Court did not err in ordering the employee's reinstatement.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and upheld the order of the Labour Court reinstating the employee.
( 1 ) THE petitioner, South Central Railway Employees Co-operative Credit Society, represented by its Secretary, seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Labour Court, Hyderabad. 1st respondent herein, passed in S. A. No. 2 of 1978.
( 2 ) THE relevant facts and circumstances giving rise to this writ petition may be stated in brief : The 3rd respondent, A. Ramdas, was at first appointed as an attender in the year 1966 and was promoted as a Record Keeper in 1968, but he was doing despatch work. He was placed under suspension on 7/12/1972, pending enquiry by the Secretary of the petitioner-society. Charges were framed on 23/12/1972, to which the third respondent submitted his explanation on 9/01/1973. The petitioner, without holding an enquiry and without assigning any reasons, issued another charge-sheet, dated 14/09/1973, with similar charges, to which the third-respondent submitted his explanation on 20/09/1973, denying the charges. Enquiry was thereafter held and he was found guilty partly of the charges by the enquiry officer and based on that report, the petitioner removed the 3rd respondent from service by order dated 10/02/1976. The said order was challenged before the appellate authority under the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishment Act, 2nd respondent herein, by way of an appeal. The appeals was allowed and a direction was given to reinstate the third respondent into service with full back wages and attendant benefits. The petitioner-society preferred a second appeal before the Labour Court, 1st respondent herein, and the same was dismissed by order dated 4/04/1980. Hence this writ petition.
( 3 ) THE contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are : (1) The Courts below have relied on the circumstances, viz. , the secretary of the Society, who nominated and constituted the enquiry officer, had no authority, conferred or delegated, as the enquiry officer will have to be appointed by the Managing Committee alone, and, therefore, held that the enquiry is vitiated and void. Since there was evidence of delegation of power by the Managing Committee to the Secretary and the Courts below, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner for establishing the same, allowed the case of the third respondent solely based on the said ground and, therefore, the impugned order has to be set aside. (2) The Courts below ought to have directed for conducting enquiry afresh in case the enquiry was found to be defective. (3) The impugned order directing the reinstatement of the third-respondent into service against whom the employer lost confidence is illegal and contrary to the case-law, as the third-respondent would at best be entitled to compensation for loss of service.
( 4 ) THE counter contentions on behalf of the third respondent are that the reinstatement was quite justified and the two fact-finding Courts below have, after detailed consideration and discussion of the material on record, concluded that the charges framed have not been held established and, therefore, the question of remanding the matter to the enquiry officer does not arise. It is also contended, relying on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in W. P. No. 1036 of 1978, that the order of reinstatement was not unjustified, as there are no unusual or exceptional circumstances to the general rule of reinstatement, which has to be granted when the charges were held not proved.
( 5 ) THE first contention is that, no doubt, the Managing Committee is the punishing authority and, therefore, it is competent for it to constitute an enquiry officer, and, since the secretary was authorised by the Managing Committee to constitute an enquiry officer and inasmuch as there was material on record to show the same, the lower Courts erred in holding that the enquiry was vitiated. The first appellate authority held on this :"there is no dispute about the fact that the punishing authority is the Managing Committee of the respondent-socie
