SEN, J.—This writ petition by M/s. Raptakos, Brett Co. Ltd., Jaipur, is directed against the award of the Authority, appointed under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments, Act, 1958, dated December 31, 1976, setting aside the order of the petitioner dated April 8, 1976, terminating the services of the respondent No. 2, Jaswant Jayram, and discharging him from its employment.

2. The petitioner M/s Raptakos, Brett & Co., Ltd., Jaipur, which is a commercial establishment, terminated with immediate effect services of respondent No. 2 Jaswant Jayram, who was employed as office-bearer cum-peon, by its letter dated April 8, 1976, which reads,—

8th April, 1976.

"Mr. Jaswant Jairam,

JAIPUR BENCH.

Dear Sir,

You are hereby informed that your services are no longer required by us.

We are enclosing a cheque for Rs. 794/- being one months wages in lieu of notice. You are relieved of the duties with immediate effect.

Your other dues will be setted in dues course.

Yours faithfully,

Raptakos, Brett & Company Ltd.

Sd/-

Dy. General Manager."

3. The respondent No. 2, Jaswant Jayram, made a complaint on April 17, 1975 to the Authority appointed under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958, Jaipur, that his services had been terminated by the petitioner without any reasonable cause and was, therefore, contrary to sec. 28-A of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act).

4. In reply, the petitioner denied the allegation that there was no reaso-able and proper cause for the termination of services of respondent No. 2 and made detailad submissions in regard thereto. It was pointed out that the respondent No. 2 eversince his transfer from Delhi to Jaipur as Office-bearer-cum peon, sometime in August 1973, had become rude and harsh in his behaviour towards the officers and other employees of the Company and despite several warnings, he did not improve in his conduct and behaviour and was also not doing the full work in the office and was working only for 2 to 3 hours in a day, and therefore was not allowad to cross the efficiency bar. It was also pointed out that the respondent No. 2 would not ice operate with the godown-keeper, had started abusing the godown keeper in most vulgar terms and also threatened to cause him physical harm with the help of goondas, was going on leave without handing over the cycle and was otherwise guilty of several other serious lapses, and therefore, he was not a fit person to be kept in service of the Company. In these circumstances, there was no other way for the petitioner but to discharge the respondent No. 2 from the Companys service and he was paid one months salary in lieu of the notice. Before termination of his services, the respondent No. 2 was served with a show cause notice dated March, 17, 1976, but he did not submit his explanation. The Authority instituted an inquiry into the matter. The petitioner examined two witnesses viz., Shri P.K. Manon, Branch Executive and Shri S.R. Bhatkhande, Godown-Keeper and produced a number of documents. In rebuttal, the respondent No. 2 examined himself and produced one Shri Deshmukh in defence. The learned Authority, by its impugned order dated December 31, 1976, set aside the termination order on the ground that the allegations contained in the charge-sheet dated March 17, 1976, were not established and therefore, ordered the petitioner to re-instate the respondent No. 2 in service with full back wages.

5. There can be no doubt that the Authority has completely misdirected itself in assuming that respondent No. 2 had been dismissed from service for misconduct, while this was a case of discharge simpliciter.

6. It is true that the form of the order of termination of the service, is not conclusive of the true nature of the order, for it is possible that the form may be merely a camouflage for an order of dismissal for misconduct. It is therefore always open to the Tribunal to go behind the form and look a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document