Back
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.P. Singh & J.S. Verma, JJ.
R.K. Nair
v.
General Manager, Bhilai Steel plant, Bhilai & another
M.P. No. 557 of 1971
Decided On : 11-1-1977
The Order was signed by the Assistant Administrative Officer "for General Manager". From the recitals in the older as also from the fact that the order was signed by the Assistant Administrative Officer "for General Manager", it is clear that the order appointing the employee as skilled worker was passed by the General Manager. [Para 4
(2) Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 - Standing Orders 2 (c), 34 and 31 (f) - authority lower in rank to the appointing authority - delegated powers for imposing punishment of removal or dismissal - removal by such authority invalid because it contravened Standing Order 31 (f) even though delegated powers may be valid and justified.
It is true that under Standing Order 34, it is for the Management to notify the authorities competent to impose the punishments. It may further be assumed that the Additional General Superintendent was authorised under Standing Order 34 read with Standing Order 2 (c) to impose the punishment of removal in respect of employees of the rank of Nair. Even so, the Additional General Superintendent was not competent to pass the order of removal against Nair, the reason being that he was an authority lower than the General Manager who was the appointing authority of Nair AIR 1937 PC 27, AIR 1972 SC 2432, AIR 1976 SC 2301, relied on. [Para 5
(3) Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 - Standing order 31 (f) - charges and the enquiry on which employee is ultimately punished framed and conducted by an authority lower in rank than appointing authority - provisions of the Order 31 (f) do not bar such enquiry - enquiry valid.
The protection under Standing Order 31 (f) is limited to this that the order of removal or dismissal from service shall not be made by any authority lower than the appointing authority. The Standing Order does neither expressly or impliedly provide that the charges and the enquiry on the basis of which the employee is ultimately punished should have also been framed and conducted by or with the approval of the appointing authority or authority not lower in rank than the appointing authority State of M.P. v. Sherdal Singh, 1971 JLJ SN 9 relied on. [Para 6
(4) Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (M.P.) - Ss. 31 and 66 - validity of domestic enquiry - should be decided as a preliminary issue then and then only question of adducing evidence regarding charges of misconduct arises-Industrial Court reversing finding of Labour Court held that domestic enquiry was defective and order of removal from service was not by competent authority remanded the case to Labour Court for adducing evidence or charges of misconduct suo motu - order legal.
When there is dispute between the parties regarding the validity of the domestic enquiry, this issue must be decided as a preliminary issue. In the instant case, the issues relating to the validity of the domestic enquiry and also the issue whether the order of removal from service was passed by a competent authority and not decided as preliminary issues by the Labour Court. Both these issues were decided by the Labour Court by its final order. It was, therefore, open to the management to urge before the Industrial Court that in case it is held that the domestic enquiry was defective the management should be given opportunity to lead evidence to prove the misconduct. AIR 1975 SC 1900, relied on. AIR 1972 SC 103 ; AIR 1973 SC 1227, distinguished. [Para 9
(5) Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act. 1946 - Standing Order 3l - A-domestic enquiry neither contravened the Standing Order 31 - A nor principles of natural justice - merely because order of removal passed by an authority lower than appointing authority - enquiry not invalid.
The only defect found by the Industrial Court was that the order of removal from service passed by the Additional General Superintendent contravened Standing Order 3 (f) as it was made by an authority lower than the appointing authority of Nair and was therefore invalid. But from this alone, it cannot be said that the entire enquiry held against Nair became defective. AIR 1976 SC 2301 relied on. [Para 10
(6) Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (M.P.) - S. 31 - Industrial Court remanded the case to the Labour Court for adducing evidence of parties regarding charges of misconduct holding that the order of removal was passed by an incompetent authority - order legal and correct.
It would be correct on principle for the Labour Court to go into the merits of the misconduct even when the final order of punishment is found to be defective on the ground that it was passed by an authority incompetent to impose the punishment. AIR 1965 SC 1803, AIR 1947 PC 23, 1948 PC 121, 1968 JLJ 521 relied on. [Para 10
(7) Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (M.P.) - Ss. 31 and 66 - domestic enquiry not defective - Labour Court should not hold fresh enquiry - it can see whether finding of misconduct is a plausible conclusion.
When there is no defect in the domestic enquiry it would be duplication of proceedings for the Labour Court to hold a fresh enquiry into the charges and it would be fair to both the sides if the Labour Court gives its findings on the charges on the basis of the domestic enquiry conducted by the Management. Therefore the Labour Court shall not hold a fresh enquiry and shall decide whether the charges of misconduct are proved on the basis of the material collected in domestic enquiry. AIR 1973 SC 1227 relied on. [Para 13
Singh, J.
1. This order shall also dispose of Miscellaneous petition No. 686 of 1971 General Manager. Bhilai Steel Plant v. Presiding officer, State Industrial Court and 2 others
2. Shri R.K. Nair, who is petitioner in M.P. No. 557 of 1971 and respondent No. 3 in M.P. No. 696 of 1971, was an operator in the Gas Facilities Department of Bhilai Steel Plant. On 5th August 1967, the Manager of this Department was gheraved by some workmen. On the same date the petitioner was suspended by an order passed by the Chief Power Engineer. On 10th August 1967, a charge sheet signed by the Manager, Gag Facilities Department; was handed over to the petitioner. The charges that were leveled against the petitioner are as follows :-
Charge No. l:-Shri R K. Nair, Operator Gas Facilities Department, had gathered a number of workers in the room of the Manager, Gas Facilities at 8.30 A.M. on 5-8-67. He was responsible for 'Gheraoing' the Manager, Gas Facilities in his office and not allowing the Manager to go out or other officials to come into him to transact normal official business. Inspite of the orders of the Manager Gas Facilities, he refused to vacate the room and go to work and continued agitating in his office Shri R.K. Nair, therefore, willfully disobeyed the lawful and reasonable order of superior in combination with others.
Charge No. 2:-Shri R.K. Nair Operator (210-365) on the aforesaid day did not do his work from 8.00 A.M. to 12.30 P.M. and has thus neglected the discharge of his duties.
Charge No.3:-Shri R.K. Nair Operator (210-365) on the aforesaid day struck work himself as well as incited others to strike work. He was on duty from 8.00 A M. to 4.30 P.M. but up till 4.30 P.M. (till he was suspended) he was striking work and agitating in the office of the Manager, Gas Facilities, despite instructions to go to work and carry on his normal duties. He persisted on this wrongful course despite repeated appeals made by CPE Manager, Gas Facilities, CIR, APM and other officials and dispite the consequences of such an action having been repeatedly explained to him, Shri R.K. Nair Operator has thus committed an act of misconduct under Standing Order No. 29 Clauses 1, 6 and 16.”
A Departmental Enquiry Committee of two officers was constituted by the General Manager by order dated 23rd August 1967 to enquire into the charges. The Committee after an enquiry submitted its report. The report of the Committee along with the record of the enquiry was examined by the Additional General Superintendent who by his order, dated 17th October 1967, removed Nair from service Nair then moved the Labour Court under section 31 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1960 to challenge the order of removal from service and for reinstatement, It was submitted by Nair that there was no proper enquiry and that the Additional General Superintendent not being his appointing authority was not competent to pass the order of removal from service. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry was proper and that the power to remove workmen of the rank of Nair was delegated to the Additional General Superintendent by the General Manager and, therefore, the order of removal from service was valid. Nair then preferred a revision before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court agreed with the Labour Court that there was no defect in the enquiry. It was, however, held that Nair's appointing authority was the General Manager and in view of Standing Order 31 (f) of the Standing Orders approved under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act. 1946, Nair could net be removed from service by any authority lower in rank to the appointing authority and that as the Additional General Superintendent was lower in rank to the General Manager the order of removal passed by him was illegal. The Industrial Court further held that in view of the order of removal being illegal, the consequence was that the enquiry was also illegal. The Industrial Court allowed the revision and r
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
