UNION OF INDIA Vs. PANDURANG KASHINATH MORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent was employed as a mistry in a telephone workshop belonging to the appellant, the Union of India. There appears to have been a strike in the workshop and thereafter on July 9, 1949, for what reason it does not appear from the record, the respondent was put under detention under the Bombay Public Security Measures Act. On July 21, 1949, the manager of the workshop suspended the respondent from duty with effect from the date of his detention. The order of suspension stated that the respondent was not entitled to any subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. On March 29, 1950, the manager passed in order terminating the service of the respondent with effect from July 9, 1949, the date on which he was suspended. He was given one month's pay in lieu of notice. The respondent was released from detention on October 25, 1950, by an order made by the High Court at Bombay. He had been in detention from July 9, 1949, till October 25, 1950, during which period the orders suspending him and terminating his service were passed.

(2.) After his release, the respondent started proceedings under the Payment of wages Act for arrears of his dues from the appellant, as a result of which he obtained payment of subsistence allowance for the period during which he had been suspended.

(3.) The respondent had also made a representation to the manager for reinstatement after he had been released. This representation was rejected. He there upon filed a suit in the Bombay City Civil Court and out of this suit the present appeal arises. In that suit he contended that the orders of his suspension and termination of service were laid for various reasons but only two of them are relevant for the purpose of this appeal. He first said that the orders were in violation of Art. 311 of the Constitution as he had not been given proper opportunity to show cause why they should not be made. He also said that the order terminating his service violated Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution as he had been "arbitrarily picked up and sacked." He claimed that the orders should be declared void and illegal and also claimed a decree for Rs. 4,896/- on account of arrears of salary from March 30,1950, till the date of the suit.