Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 830
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. SINGHARAVELU
The Management of Hindustan Lever Limited
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai (Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Estates Act), Madurai & Another
Writ Appeal No.1491 of 2000
Decided on : 06-03-2008
For the Appellant: A.L. Somayaji, Senior Counsel for M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co.
For the Respondents:R1, P. Subramaniam, G.A., R2, D. Hari Paranthaman, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific provisions in charges of misconduct, fair opportunity, and adequate notice to the employee in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing the principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
Misconduct - Employment Dispute - Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act - [1963(1) LLJ 684, 2005 (4) LLN 961, 2006 (2) LLJ 113] - The court discussed the concept of misconduct in the absence of standing orders, the wider connotation of misconduct, and the need for specific provisions in charges of misconduct. The court emphasized the importance of principles of natural justice in conducting disciplinary proceedings and highlighted the requirement for fair opportunity and adequate notice to the employee.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, engaged in the manufacture and sale of soaps and detergents, filed a writ petition seeking to quash the termination of an employee for alleged misconduct. The appellate authority and the single Judge found that the charges of misconduct were not proved and set aside the dismissal order. The management appealed against this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the alleged misconduct charges were not proved and that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated for failure of principles of natural justice. The court also noted the lack of specific provisions in the charges of misconduct and emphasized the importance of fair opportunity and adequate notice to the employee.
Issues: The issues involved the alleged misconduct of the employee, the validity of the disciplinary proceedings, and the application of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act in the absence of standing orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of specific provisions in the charges of misconduct deprived the employee of making an effective defense. The court emphasized the need for fair opportunity and adequate notice to the employee in disciplinary proceedings, highlighting the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the appellate authority and the single Judge to set aside the dismissal order. The court found no illegality or irregularity in the well-considered findings of both the appellate authority and the single Judge.
Elipe Dharma Rao, J.
The writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 22.06.2000 made in W.P.No.4168 of 1992, which was filed seeking a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 1st respondent in Case No.TSE Case No.7/89 and to quash his order dated 25.07.1991.
2. The case of the appellant, in brief, is as follows:-
The appellant/writ petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and sale of soaps and detergents. It has its Branch Office at Madras which caters to sale of goods in Southern States. The appellant/Management has appointed re-distribution stockists in various locations. The stockists operate their units in the vicinity of their locations. Every unit will cover about 40 retailers/wholesalers in a day. The appellant/Management posts Territory Sales Incharge (TSI) with headquarters in important cities and each TSI will have a specified territory to look after as his responsibility. There will be about 8 to 10 stockists under the control of each TSI. The duties of a TSI includes selection of redistribution stockists RS), overseeing their performance, sales promotion of the appellants products. etc. Above a TSI, there are Sales Officer, Area Sales Manager, Branch Sales Manager and a Branch Manager. The TSI works along with the unit of the stockists and he has to accompany the unit with the Salesman of the stockist and make spot sales to various retailers.
3. It is further alleged that each retailer/wholesaler is provided with a retailer card which gives details of sales made by him and as and when purchases are made, the unit salesman will make entries of such purchases. Normally, a TSI is expected to work in the market for 6 hours a day and make about 35 to 40 calls on the retailers and wholesalers. In the stock control statement, the TSI also makes entries regarding his working with the redistribution stockist unit, the number of calls made by him and the value of the sales effected by him while working with the unit in the market. The object of the maintenance of Stock Control Statement, retailer cards, the submission of daily sales report is that it will prevent the TSI from malingering or making in any false reporting as the entries if not instantaneously made in the normal discharge of his work, there will be bound to be some discrepancies which will expose erring TSI of his irregularities in the discharge of his work.
4. It is further alleged that the Area Sales Manager of the appellant/Management found certain discrepancies in the daily sales reports of the appellant and they were not received for certain days in April 1989. When the matter was probed into further, it became evident that the second respondent was not working in the market as reported by him and he was making false reports about his working. The investigation made by the Area Sales Manager revealed that though in his daily sales report for 03.05.1989 the 2nd respondent stated that he worked from 1000 hours to 1400 hours and from 1500 hours to 1700 hours and made 35 calls, he had really worked for about half an hour only making 3 to 4 calls. Further in his daily report for 04.05.1989, the 2nd respondent stated that he worked from 1030 hours to 1330 hours in Othakadai and from 1400 hours to 1800 hours in K.K.Nagar area making a total of 35 calls but he had actually worked only for half a day with the Unit in Othakadai area and had made only 20 calls. He did not work in K.K.Nagar area at all on 04.05.1989. The 2nd respondent did not submit his daily reports for 05.05.1989 and 06.05.1989. In his stock control statement dated 20.05.1989, he showed that he made a total of 146 calls on 24.04.1989, 03.05.1989, 04.05.1989, 05.05.1989 and 06.05.1989. When the redistribution stockist Mr.Rajan of M/s.Visalakshi Syndicate was questioned, it was gathered that on 05.05.1989, the 2nd respondent worked with the R.S.Unit till 1400 hours and on 06.05.1989 he did not work in the market at all. It was also reported that
