Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 3101
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN
G. Nagoor
Versus
The Management of Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd., Madras Unit & Another
W.A. No. 737 of 2008
Decided on : 27-08-2008
For the Appellant:N.G.R. Prasad for M/s. Row & Reddy, Advocate.
For the Respondents:S. Raveendran for M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co., Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of whether a termination order is punitive or simplicitor, based on the presence of stigma and the conduct of a full-scale formal enquiry.
Headnote:
Termination - Industrial Disputes - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2-A(2) - The court discussed the termination of a workman's service and whether it was punitive or simplicitor. The court referred to various memorandums and Supreme Court decisions to determine the nature of the termination order.
Fact of the Case:
The workman was appointed temporarily and placed on probation. His service was terminated without assigning any reason. The workman moved before the Labour Court for reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order of termination was simplicitor and not punitive in nature. It concluded that the termination did not cast any stigma on the workman and was not punitive.
Issues: The main issue was whether the order of termination was punitive or simplicitor.
Ratio Decidendi: The court referred to various Supreme Court decisions to determine the nature of the termination order, including whether it contained any stigma and whether a full-scale formal enquiry had been conducted.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ appeal, stating that the termination did not cast any stigma on the workman and was not punitive in nature.
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
This appeal has been preferred by the workman against order dated 30th April, 2008 passed by learned single Judge whereby and whereunder at the instance of the Management of Modern Food Industries Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Management), the award passed by the II Addl. Labour Court, Chennai, which was in favour of the workman, has been set aside.
2. The brief facts of the case is that the workman was appointed temporarily as Junior Assistant on 18th Sept., 1995, and placed on probation for a period of six months. While so, his service was terminated on 15th March, 1996, without assigning any reason. A dispute was raised and on failure of conciliation, the workman moved before the Labour Court u/s 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for his reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service. Learned Presiding Officer, II Addl. Labour Court, Chennai, by impugned award dated 31st July, 2006, in I.D. No.336/96, answered the award in favour of the workman directing the Management to reinstate the workman in service without back wages, but with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. The award, aforesaid, having set aside at the instance of the Management, the workman preferred this appeal.
3. Before the Labour Court, the workman took plea that without any opportunity, the order of termination was passed. The main contention of the Management was that, since the workman was on probation and his performance was not satisfactory, on completion of the period of probation, his services were terminated. Learned Labour Court, having noticed the evidence that the workman was appointed after calling for names from the employment exchange and that the Management has stated that his performance was not satisfactory, giving reference to Supreme Court decision in V.P.Ahuja – Vs – State of Punjab (2000 (3) SCC 239 : AIR 2000 SC 1080), only referring to the head notes, held that regular enquiry and opportunity was a must and the service of the workman having terminated without any enquiry or framing of any charges, the order of termination has to be set aside and, thereby, passed the award in favour of the workman.
4. The only question involved in the present case is whether the order of termination is punitive or simplicitor.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant referred to the impugned letter of termination to suggest that the said letter recites a file or some other letters and, thereby, the background of issuance of order of termination is to punish the petitioner. It was submitted that the impugned letter of termination may be innocuous, but if the proceeding as referred to in the said letter is seen, it will be evident that it is penal in nature. He also relied on certain decisions of Supreme Court, which will be discussed at the appropriate stage.
6. For appreciation of the case of workman, it is relevant to notice and quote certain letters, including the order of termination as communicated to the workman. By a memorandum having reference No.MS/ADMN./PF-340/95-96 dated 5th Dec., 1995, certain allegations were levelled against the workman while he was in service and explanation was called for, for the following allegations :-
"Ref. No.MS/ADMN/P.F. 340/95-96 Date : 12. 95
MEMORANDUM * * * * * * * *
Shri G.Nagoor, Jr.Asst (Stores) is directed to explain :
1) Why and how the note was sent to Accounts Dept., recommending payment to Sri Babu for weighing pouches when the work was reported to be done by Sri G.Kuppan, casual worker.
2) Why he engaged Sri Babu, Cleaning Contract Worker for stacking yeast when a regular and a casual worker were on duty at Stores.
3) Why Shri Babu was engaged from 14.00 Hrs. when the vehicle bringing the yeast came only at 16.10 Hrs."
By another memorandum having same reference No.MS/ADMN./PF-340/95-96, dated 19th Dec., 1995, theworkman was advised to be careful and, thereby, he was warned, as quoted hereunder :-
"Ref. N
