Back
1962 Supreme(Bom) 105
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT NAGPUR BENCH
ABHYANKAR, PARANJPE, JJ.
The Ballarpur Collieries Company – Appellant
Versus
The State Industrial Court – Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 364 of 1961
Decided On : 08-09-1962
An employer is entitled to dismiss an employee for misconduct after holding an enquiry, but the enquiry must be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
The petitioner company, a registered partnership firm, dismissed the respondent, a stenographer, for alleged misconduct after holding an enquiry. The respondent challenged the dismissal order under Section 16 of the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 (Act XXIII of 1947). The Assistant Commissioner of Labour and the State Industrial Court found that the enquiry was not proper and was vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice. They also held that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, applied to the company and governed the relationship between the company and the respondent. The petitioner challenged the orders of the authorities below by filing a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner company, a registered partnership firm, dismissed the respondent, a stenographer, for alleged misconduct after holding an enquiry. The respondent challenged the dismissal order under Section 16 of the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 (Act XXIII of 1947).
Finding of the Court:
The Assistant Commissioner of Labour and the State Industrial Court found that the enquiry was not proper and was vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice. They also held that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, applied to the company and governed the relationship between the company and the respondent.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner company is governed by the C.P. and Berar Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, and the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 (Act No. XXIII of 1947) is excluded from its operation or application? 2. Is the petitioner governed in respect of the relationship between the petitioner and its employees and the Head Office by the provisions of the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947? 3. Assuming that the provisions of the C.P. Act XXIII of 1947 are applicable to the petitioner and its employees, is the action taken by the petitioner against respondent No. 3 within the authority of that Act? 4. Is the action taken against respondent No. 3 in holding the enquiry and dismissing respondent No. 3 vitiated because of violation of any principles of natural justice? 5. Whether the authorities below had not exceeded their jurisdiction in re-assessing and re-valuing the action on merits in holding that the charges were not established.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, applies to the petitioner company and governs the relationship between the company and the respondent. The mere fact that the Head Office of the petitioner-company is registered under the Shops and Establishments Act, either as a commercial establishment or as a shop, will not exclude the application of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act or the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, if they are otherwise applicable to the petitioner-company. 2. The notification issued by the Provincial Government under Section 1(3) of the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, excludes from the operation of the Act only the industry of mines and not other activities connected with the mining industry as a whole. 3. The Head Office of the petitioner company is an integral part of the mining industry conducted by the company, and is, therefore, governed by the provisions of the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947. 4. The petitioner company was entitled to dismiss the respondent for misconduct after holding an enquiry, but the enquiry had to be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The enquiry held in the instant case was vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice, as the respondent was not given a copy of the enquiry officer's findings and was not allowed to examine the witnesses. 5. The industrial authorities below did not exceed their jurisdiction in coming to the conclusion that there was no justification for the petitioner to pass the order dismissing the respondent from service for the alleged misconduct attributed to him.
Final Decision: The petition is dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT :
ABHYANKAR, J.
1. The petitioner, the Ballarpur Collieries Company, is a registered partnership firm. It has its registered office at Bisesar House in Nagpur. The petitioner owns coal mines in Chanda district in this region. The business of the company is to sell coal extracted from its mines. The Head Office of the petitioner is at Nagpur and that consists of office staff of thirty-five persons. It was stated by the petitioner that the Head Office at Nagpur carried on correspondence with lawful authorities, mines and customers and received amounts of the bills of coal supplied to the customers. The staff of the mines is transferable to the Head Office and vice versa.
2. Respondent No. 3 was a stenographer. He had put in about 24 years service as such with the concern. The present petitioner has acquired interest in the coal business from the predecessor with whom respondent No. 3 was also working. He was drawing a salary of Rs. 317 per month including allowances etc. at the relevant time. It appears that the petitioner permitted respondent No. 3 to go on leave and join duties on return from leave on or about June 19, 1959. On June 22, 1959, respondent No. 3 had an interview with Seth Sunderlal, junior partner of the petitioner firm. What happened at this interview in a matter of dispute between the parties. Respondent No. 3 worked as usual up to June 30, 1959, in the office. On that date, according to respondent No. 3, he had submitted the calculation of the amount that may be payable to him by way of Provident Fund etc. to Seth Sunderlal. This fact is not admitted by the petitioner. On July 1, 1959, respondent No. 3 attended office but when he was told by Shri Kothekar, who was his immediate superior officer, to take some work for typing, respondent No. 3 declined on the ground that he was no longer in service. It does not appear from the record that any immediate complaint was made about this alleged refusal to obey the orders of Shri Kothekar by respondent No. 3. On July 10, 1959, respondent No. 3 submitted another statement purporting to be the calculation of his claim for gratuity or compensation if for any reason he was to retire from service or cease to be in service, to Seth Jamnadas, the, Managing Director of the petitioner firm. On the next date, i.e. July 11, 1959, respondent No. 3 addressed a letter to Seth Jamnadas. It is to be found at pages 66-68 of the Paper Book. In this letter addressed to Seth Jamnadas he has made a grievance that he had approached the Managing Director to explain his case and that seems to have annoyed the Managing Director. Letter was therefore written to put on record what was his version of the circumstances in which he had approached the Managing Director. Either on the same date or on the previous date, the petitioner-company through its Personnel Officer issued a letter bearing No. 221, calling upon respondent No. 3, within 48 hours of the receipt of the letter, to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him and why his services should not be dispensed with. That letter is at pages 48-49 of the Paper Book. The charge imputed to respondent No. 3 in this letter is that he was not doing any typing work and whenever any one called him or gave him work he refused to do the same on the pretext that he was unable to do it as he was on the verge of retirement, which was absolutely irrelevant in view of the fact that the terms of service expected him to work till he was in service or till lie had submitted his resignation to the office. There is no reference in this letter to the alleged refusal to obey the orders issued by Shri Kothekar on July 1, 1959. This letter was received by respondent No. 3 some time later and possibly on July 13, 1959. On July 11, 1959, respondent No. 3 had sent a note in the office that he would be unable to attend office on that date and he may be treated as on casual leave. He had sent another note on July 3, 1959, that he was ill and
