An employer cannot dismiss a workman without holding a departmental enquiry and following the principles of natural justice, even if the termination of service is purported to be in accordance with the terms of employment.

Narasimham, J.

1. This is an application to quash the order of the Labour Court Ranchi dated the 39th December, 1961, in Reference case No. 3 of 1961, holding the termination of the services of Sri Padma Nabh Nola, respondent No. 3, by the petitioner to be illegal and unjustified and directing his reinstatement with full wages.

2. Respondent No. 3 joined the service of the petitioner as an Assistant Store-keeper on the 2nd August, 1956. On the 24th January 1959 he was called upon to explain certain shortages in the general section of the stores kept in his charge. He submitted his explanation, but that was not found to be satisfactory and then on the 2nd March, 1959 his services were terminated (Annexure A) in pursuance of Clause 11 (b) of the Service Rules prevailing in the petitioners office The Government of Bihar, on the 5th April. 1961 referred to the Labour Court (see Annexure C) the dispute relating to the question as to whether respondent No. 3 should be reinstated in service or else he should he otherwise compensated. In their order of reference (vide notification of the Department of Labour and Employment No. III/DI-6044/61-L 2203, dated the 5th April. 1961) the Government stated as follows: "Whereas the Governor of Bihar is of opinion that an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended between the management of Hindustan General Electrical Corporation Ltd. Karampura, (Dhanbad) and their workmen represented by Karampura Workers Union. Karampura (Dhanbad)

3. The Labour Court while holding that Respondent No, 3 was not victimised and that there was no unfair Labour practice never the less held that, though the employer (the petitioner) purported merely to terminate the services of Respondent No. 3, in essence, it was a case of dismissal for misconduct, and that, as admittedly no enquiry was held the order of dismissal could not be sustained.

4. Mr. Balbhadra Prasad Singh on behalf of the petitioner raised the following conditions:

(1) There was no industrial dispute before the Labour Court. This was a simple dispute between an individual workman and the management and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to decide it.

(2) Once it is held by the Labour Court that there was no mala fides on the part of the employer, nor unfair labour practice, right of the employer to terminate the services of a workman in accordance with the terms of employment, as provided in the rules or in the Standing Orders was not assailable.

5. It is true that originally it was a simple dispute between an individual workman and the employer but the Secretary of the Labour Union gave evidence before the Labour Court to the effect that he referred the dispute between respondent No 3 and the employer to the Labour Officer in the first instance who attempted conciliation which failed. Thereupon the matter was referred to the State Government who referred it to the Labour Court en the ground that an industrial dispute existed or was apprehended. Mr. Balbhadra Prasad Singh argued with considerable ingenuity that the evidence of the Secretary of fee Union (Annexure B) did not show that he purported to act as Secretary of the Union and not in his individual capacity and that, consequently the Labour Court was not justified in holding that Labour Union took up the cause of respondent No 3. Apart from the fact that this cannot be an error of law apparent on the face of the record a fair reading of the deposition of the Secretary (Annexure B) would show that whatever he did in this case was on behalf of the Union and not in his individual capacity. Nothing was brought out in his cross examination to support such a view. Moreover it is well known that even an individual dispute between a workman and an employer might have the potentiality of becoming an industrial dispute and if there is an apprehension that such an industrial dispute might exist the Government have jurisdiction to make a reference under Sec.10 (1). In the order of reference which I