Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.SESHACHALAPATI, P.SATYANARAYANA RAJU
ANDHRA SCIENTIFIC COMPANY LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
A.Seshagiri Rao represented by Andhra Scientific Co.Employees Union, Masulipatam - Respondent
Decided On : 08-25-59
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 2(S) - WORKMAN - MANAGERIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY - SUPERVISORY CAPACITY - WHETHER STORES MANAGER IS A WORKMAN - DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - VIOLATION - REINSTATEMENT - JURISDICTION OF LABOUR COURT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a public limited company, dismissed the 1st respondent, its Stores Manager, for alleged misconduct. The Labour Court set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement with back wages. The petitioner challenged the Labour Court's decision on the grounds that the 1st respondent was not a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, that the departmental enquiry was vitiated by irregularities, and that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to direct reinstatement.
Finding of the Court:
1. The 1st respondent was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as his functions were mainly supervisory in character and he was not drawing a salary exceeding Rs. 500 per month. 2. The departmental enquiry was vitiated by irregularities, including the examination of the General Manager, who conducted the enquiry, as a witness, and the Director of the Managing Agents, who made the final decision, not having an open, impartial, and unbiased mind. 3. The Labour Court had jurisdiction to direct reinstatement, as the dismissal was set aside due to irregularities in the departmental enquiry.
Issues: 1. Whether the 1st respondent was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. Whether the departmental enquiry was vitiated by irregularities. 3. Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to direct reinstatement.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of 'workman' in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act includes any person employed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical, or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment are express or implied. 2. The principles of natural justice require that a person conducting an enquiry should be one without bias and should render the decision in a judicial spirit and in accordance with the principles of substantial justice. 3. The Labour Court has jurisdiction to direct reinstatement if it finds that the dismissal was wrongful or unjustified.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with costs. The Labour Court's decision was upheld.
( 2 ) THE petitioner before this Court is the Andhra Scientific Company Ltd. , Masulipatam, represented by its General Manager. The Company originally started as a private proprietary concern of one A. R. Murthy. In or about 1937, it was converted into a public limited liability Company and incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. After such incorporation, A. R. Murthy and Company were the managing agents till 1949, when Srimanth Industrial (Private Limited) became the managing agents. The principal business of the Company is the manufacture and sale of scientific instruments, apparatuses, glassware and chemicals with its factory and head office located- at Masulipatam. The Company has a General Stores Department for receiving, stocking and issuing the manufactured goods against orders. The Stores Department consists of a number of Store Keepers, Clerks, Attenders, Packers, Dispatching and Forwarding Clerks. The functions of the various employees of the Company are regulated by certain staff regulations and orders to which references will be made in due course.
( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that at the relevant period to this enquiry, Sri K. Ramanatha Babu one of the Directors of the Managing Agents Company was in charge of the administration of the Company, and Sri Laxmipathi was the General Manager.
( 4 ) THE 1st respondent, Sri A. Seshagiri Rao, is the brother of A. R. Murthy, the founder of the concern and had been in its employment since 1927 and continued in service even after it was converted into a public limited liability Company. From 1937 to 1940 he was the Office Manager in the Madras Branch. In 1940 he was transferred to the head office and from that time onwards he worked as the stores manager. It is alleged by the petitioner-Company that in 1953 due to the unsatisfactory nature of the work of the 1st respondent his salary which was then Rs. 300. 00 was reduced by Rs. 50. 00with effect from 1-9-1953. It is immaterial to discuss the question whether the reduction of the 1st respondents salary was a punitive act or a measure of retrenchment. In May 1955, Sri K. Ramanatha Babu, the Director of the Managing Agents Company inspected the Stores Department and gave certain instructions to the 1st respondent for the improvement of the work in that Department and directed him to complete the work in the manner suggested, by 17-10-1955. It is alleged that though further extensions of time were applied for by the 1st respondent and granted by the petitioner-company for the due implementation of the directions given by the Director, the 1st respondent had not finished the work. On 25-4-1956, the 1st respondent was transferred to the Quotations Department. On 28-4-1956, he-was placed under suspension by an order of the Director, Sri K. Ramanatha Babu, and a charge-sheet containing specific charges was communicated to the 1st respondent on the same day. The charges framed against the 1st respondent are in these terms: tt1. Your handling of the Stores has throughout been most reckless and inefficient and your work was always very unsatisfactory. (a) The items in the Stores were never arranged properly and were never labeled. (b) A very large number of discrepancies between the physical inventories and ledger balances were being noticed at every time of annual closing and stock taking which were not properly explained or reconciled at any time though assistance was given; vide note dated 17-11-1955. (c) The annual stock taking was never properly done and the stock lists were never submitted for audit within reasonable time. 2. Your work was found
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
