The dismissal of an employee must be in accordance with the principles of natural justice and based on a proper enquiry into the alleged misconduct.

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition impugns an order of the appellate authority-under the Bidi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act 1966, Nasik, made in Appeal No. 1 of 1979 u/s 31(2)(a) of the Bidi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The respondent was employed in the service of the petitioner, which owns an establishment manufacturing Bidis. The respondent filed an appeal u/s 31(2)(a) of the Act before the appellate authority at Nasik alleging, inter alia, that she was employed as a Tarai Kamgar (Bidi Checker) in the Sinnar Branch of the petitioner's establishment and that she was serving as such continuously for four years, till she was illegally dismissed on April 4, 1979. She also claimed that she was paid wages of Rs. 120/- per month. It was the case of respondent before the appellate authority that on March 8, 1979 one Jagannath Ramakant Chandak, Managing Director of the petitioner, told her not to report for duties for two to three days until receipt of a letter from him calling upon her to report for work. Accordingly, the respondent did not report for work with effect from March 9, 1979 and awaited a letter from the employer. Nothing was heard from the employer till March 24, 1979, on which date she received a letter by registered post which alleged falsely against her that she was selling "Bhel" to co-workers for money inside the factory and had also remained absent from March 9, 1979. She was also thereby directed to attend an enquiry on March 30, 1979. It was her case that on March 30, 1979, she went to the office of the petitioner and orally stated that she had never intentionally remained absent and had on the contrary been directed to remain away from work till called upon to report for work. She being illiterate could not give the statement in writing and requested the petitioner to allow her to resume her duties. The said Chandak called upon her to do the work of Bidi worker instead of Bidi sorter (Taraiwala) which she rightly refused and hence she has been illegally dismissed from service by a letter dated April 4, 1979. She was sent certain amounts by the employer, by Demand Draft, which she accepted without prejudice to her right to challenge the dismissal order. She claimed that the order of dismissal was illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice and sought the relief of reinstatement with fill back wages.

3. The petitioner contested the appeal of the respondent on several grounds. First, it was contended that the appeal was time better as it was not filed within thirty days from the date of dismissal. On merits, it was contended that the respondent used to frequently remain absent without giving prior notice resulting in dislocation of the work of the establishment; that despite several warnings, there had been no improvement in her behavior. It was also alleged that she was carrying on the business of selling "Bhel" packets in the factory for money which was improper and contrary to the factory's discipline. Finally, it was alleged that the respondent had remained absent from March 9, 1979, for which she had been served with the chargesheet dated March 24, 1979; that she did not resume her work even thereafter and an enquiry was made with regard to the charges and during the enquiry she gave a reply in writing on April 2, 1079 in which she admitted the guilt. In view of this, she was removed from her job. The petitioner denied that the action of dismissing the respondent from service was illegal or contrary to the principles of natural justice as contended by the respondent.

4. The appellate authority over-ruled the connection with regard to the limitation by taken the view that the first document by which the respondent had been informed that she had been removed from service was the letter dated April 16, 1979 which was received by her only on April 16, 1979. The appeal having been filed on April 4, 1979, he held that