DIGWADIH COLLERY Vs. RAMJI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent Ramji Singh was in the service of the appellant the Management of Digwadih Colliery for over 10 years. On May 17, 1960, he was dismissed from service. Thereupon he made an application to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. He alleged that the order of dismissal passed against him by the appellant contravened the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and was otherwise improper and illegal. The Tribunal in substance has upheld both these contentions. In the result the Tribunal has ordered the appellant to reinstate the respondent in its service within one month and to pay him half the wages during the period of his forced unemployment. It is against this award that the appellant has come to this Court by special leave.

(2.) It appears that the respondent was served with a charge-sheet that he had committed misconduct under Standing Order 19(13) of the appellant, and the respondent was told that an enquiry would be held into the alleged misconduct. An enquiry was accordingly held where evidence was led and a report was made by the enquiring officer that the charge under 19(13) had been proved against the respondent. Acting on that report the respondent had been dismissed.

(3.) The case against the respondent was that he had given a loan to another employee of the appellant, Jay Narain by name, and the appellant held that lending money to a subordinate employee constituted misconduct under clause 19(13) of the Standing Orders. The Tribunal has taken the view that even if this loan is held to be proved a single transaction of lending money to a subordinate employee cannot be said to constitute money-lending business for he has observed that "one swallow does not make a summer". In coming to this conclusion the Tribunal has unfortunately based itself solely on the charge which uses the word "money-lending business". In deciding the question as to whether the facts proved constituted the contravention of 19(13) it was clearly necessary to consider the provisions of 19(13) itself, and if the Tribunal had considered the said provision it would have immediately found that what is prohibited by the said clause is lending money to, or borrowing money from, subordinate employees. Now, the words used in the relevant clause do not permit the introduction of consideration as to what would be money-lending business. A single transaction of lending money or borrowing money would fall within the terms of clause 19(13). Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal that even if the facts held to be proved are assumed to be correctly found that would not contravene 19(13) is wrong.