Standing orders framed binding on the parties.

The Mettur Industries Ltd., is the petitioner. The first respondent, A.R. Varma, was employed in the petitioner’s Mills in Mettur Dam as a Weaving Production Clerk. On 28th November, 1956, the petitioner dismissed the first respondent on the charge that he had been found sleeping on three occasions while on duty on the night of 22nd November, 1956. During the enquiry held against him the first respondent handed over to the enquiring officer a letter, a copy of which is Exhibit A, to which reference will be made presently. At the time the order of dismissal was passed, an industrial dispute between the workmen and the management of the petitioner was pending. So the petitioner filed an application under section 33 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court for the approval of the action which the petitioner had taken. The first respondent Varma also filed a complaint under section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act alleging that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of section 33 of the Act. The Labour Court heard both the petitions together and in an award, dated 13th March, 1957, held that the dismissal of the first respondent was unjustified and that he should be reinstated with full back pay and continuity of service. Against this award of the Labour Court the petitioner applied for Special Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. That application was dismissed on 24th May, 1957. The petitioner, therefore, had no option but to comply with the award which had been made on 13th March, 1957. The first respondent was therefore reinstated on 13th July, 1957.

The management, however, felt that the continuance in service of Varma who had sent a letter of the kind he had would be prejudicial to the interests of the concern, and, exercising the powers they had under Standing Order 18 (a) of the Standing Orders of the Mill, they terminated the services of Varma. An industrial dispute was raised about this which the Government by an order of 24th September, 1957, referred to the Labour Court, Coimbatore, for disposal. The question referred was:

"Whether the termination of the services of clerk Sri A. R. Varma on 13th July, 1957, is justified and to what relief and security of service he is entitled to".

On 30th December, 1957, the Labour Court pronounced the award directing that Varma should be reinstated.

This petition has been filed for the issue of an appropriate writ to quash this order of the Labour Court.

In the affidavit filed in support of the petition the petitioner urged that the Labour Court had overlooked the distinction between termination of service under Standing Order 18 (a) and dismissal. The Labour Court was wrong in assuming that before the service of Varma could be terminated under Standing Order 18 (a) he should have been given an opportunity of making his representations. The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the management terminating the services of Varma in the absence of evidence either of mala fides or unfair labour practice.

In the counter-affidavit, which he filed, Varma stated that the petitioner did not implement the award, dated 13th March, 1957, even after the Supreme Court had dismissed the petition for Special Leave to appeal to it. At his instance the National Textile Employees’ Union, Mettur Dam, informed the Labour Officer of Salem that the award had not been implemented. Merely to avoid prosecution the petitioner permitted Varma to join duty on 13th July, 1957. In the afternoon of the same day he was served with a notice terminating his services under Standing Order 18 (a). I now quote from his affidavit:

"I submit that the reasons assigned in the notice of termination, dated 13th July, 1957, are unfounded and untenable. I submit that the order of termination of my service is unjust, arbitrary and against all principles of natural justice besides being illegal. I also submit that the petitioner’s conduct is thoroughly mala fide and provides a glaring