HINDUSTAN STEELS LIMITED ROURKELA Vs. A K ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 1 was, in 1955, admitted as a trade apprentice by the appellant-company in its works, the company agreeing to bear the costs of his training, as such apprentice, which it did for a period of 3 years. On completion of his training, he was appointed in September 1958 as a skilled workman, i.e., as a fitter. The letter of appointment under which he was engaged contained a clause which required him to execute a bond to serve the company for five years at least. The object of that clause evidently was to ensure that he served the company at least for five years in consideration of the company having borne the expenses of his training.

(2.) The evidence produced before the Industrial Tribunal shows that the practice of the company, set up at the instance of the Government of India and the Company's Board of Directors, was to have a confidential inquiry made to verify the antecedents of its employees. Such verification not being practicable at the time of the appointment of each employee, it used to be done after a workman was appointed. The object of such verification was to ascertain whether it was desirable or not in the interests of the company to continue the service of the employee in respect of whom such verification was made. The inquiry was made through the police. On receipt of a verification report from the police, the Senior Security Officer of the company would make his recommendation and the company would terminate the service of an employee where it was considered desirable in the company's interests not to continue such an employee in service after giving 3 months' notice or salary for that period in lieu thereof.

(3.) Throughout the period of his service commencing from September 1958 no action was ever taken against respondent 1 although he had at one time joined a strike in the company's works and although he was an active member and the secretary of the workmen's union. A criminal case in relation to the said strike was filed against him but had been subsequently withdrawn. Prima facie, the fact that no action was taken against him indicated that the company did not consider his active participation in the union activities objectionable so as to warrant any interference on its part.