PURE DRINKS (P) LTD Vs. KIRAT SINGH MAUNGATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave arises out of an industrial dispute between the appellant, Pure Drinks (P) Ltd. and its employee Shri Kirat Singh Maungatt represented by the respondent Union. The dispute was with regard to the order of discharge by which the services of the employee were terminated by the appellant. The Tribunal which tried this dispute has held that the termination was unauthorised and illegal and it has accordingly directed the appellant to reinstate the employee within two weeks from the date when the award becomes enforceable. The Tribunal has also passed consequential orders in respect of the said reinstatement. It is against this order that the appellant has come to this Court with special leave.

(2.) The material facts leading up to the dispute are very few and they can be conveniently stated at the outset very briefly. Kirat Singh, the employee, has been working with the appellant as a route salesman since October 1952. The appellant is a private limited company engaged in the manufacture and supply of aerated water. On March 28, 1958, the employee signed the cash memo books and recorded his signature in the logbook as usual. That day the helper who would ordinarily have accompanied the employee was absent; in fact only seven helpers out of eleven had reported for duty on that day while ten routes had to be serviced. In the absence of the usual helper the employee was asked to take Suraj as a helper. He then refused to take him because he was apprehensive of losses on the route. The employee then made a request for an additional helper which request was rejected by the sales manager. The employee then persisted and said that he would apply for leave. He was told that leave could not be granted in the absence of any valid ground; even so the employee wrote an application for leave without pay in order to be able to attend to urgent personal work and handed over the same to the sales manager. When the sales manager emphasised that leave could not be granted under the circumstances under which the application for leave was made, the employee became rude and spoke indignant and abusive language. He was then warned that his conduct had violated the discipline of the organisation and would not be tolerated. Nevertheless the employee took off his uniform, tried to snatch the logbook from the sales manager's hand in order to strike off his attendance and ultimately left the premises using abusive language towards the sales manager.

(3.) This incident gave rise to a charge-sheet against the said employee. He was charged with wilful insubordination and disobedience of lawful and reasonable orders of his superior, and it was alleged that he was guilty of an act subversive of discipline inasmuch as he had absented himself without leave. At the enquiry six witnesses were examined in support of the charges and they were cross-examined by the employee. The enquiry proceedings concluded on April 30, 1958. The enquiry officer found the employee guilty of the charges contained in the charge-sheet. Thereupon a letter of discharge was issued to him on July 8, 1958. Even though the employee should have been dismissed on proved charges the appellant took a compassionate view of his case and decided to discharge him with one month's pay in lieu of notice and his pay for the suspension period as well as the amount due to him on account of accrued leave, if any. The employee was not satisfied with this order and raised the present industrial dispute.